Transitions in health care settings for frequent and infrequent users of emergency departments: a population-based retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to reduce emergency department (ED) volumes often target frequent users. We examined transitions in care across ED, hospital, and community settings, and in-hospital death, for high system users (HSUs) compared to controls. METHODS: Population-based databases provided ED visits and hospitalizations in Alberta and Ontario, Canada. The retrospective cohort included the top 10% of all the ED users during 2015/2016 (termed HSUs) and a random sample of controls (4 per each HSU) from the bottom 90% per province. Rates of transitions among ED, hospitalization, community settings, and in-hospital mortality were adjusted for sociodemographic and ED variables in a multistate statistical model. RESULTS: There were 2,684,924 patients and 579,230 (21.6%) were HSUs. Patient characteristics associated with shorter community to ED transition times for HSUs included Alberta residence (ratio of hazard ratio [RHR] = 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11,1.12), living in areas in the lower income quintile (RHR = 1.06, 95%CI 1.06,1.06), and Ontario residents without a primary health care provider (RHR = 1.13, 95%CI 1.13,1.14). Once at the ED, characteristics associated with shorter ED to hospital transition times for HSUs included higher acuity (e.g., RHR = 1.70, 95% CI 1.61, 1.81 for emergent), and for many diagnoses including chest pain (RHR = 1.71, 95%CI 1.65,1.76) and gastrointestinal (RHR = 1.66, 95%CI 1.62,1.71). Once admitted to hospital, HSUs did not necessarily have longer stays except for conditions such as chest pain (RHR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.86, 0.95). HSUs had shorter times to death in the ED if they presented for cancer (RHR = 2.51), congestive heart failure (RHR = 1.93), myocardial infarction (RHR = 1.53), and stroke (RHR = 1.84), and shorter times to death in-hospital if they presented with cancer (RHR = 1.29). CONCLUSIONS: Differences between HSUs and controls in predictors of transitions among care settings were identified. Co-morbidities and limitations in access to primary care are associated with more rapid transitions from community to ED and hospital among HSUs. Interventions targeting these challenges may better serve patients across health systems.. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Validation of ICD-10 codes for studying foreign body airway obstructions: A health administrative data cohort study.

Aim: To validate a case definition for foreign body airway obstructions (FBAO) using International Classification of Diseases version 10 (ICD-10) codes to accurately identify patients in administrative health databases and improve reporting on this injury. Methods: We identified prehospital patient encounters in Alberta, Canada between Jan 1, 2018 and Dec 31, 2021 by querying the provincial emergency medical services' (EMS) patient care records for FBAO-related presentations, EMS protocols, or treatments. We deterministically linked EMS patient encounters to data on emergency department visits and hospital admissions, which included ICD-10 codes. Two physicians independently reviewed encounters to determine true FBAO cases. We then calculated diagnostic accuracy measures (sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios) of various algorithms. Results: We identified 3677 EMS patient encounters, 2121 were linked to hospital administrative databases. Of these encounters, 825 (38.9%) were true FBAO. The combination of two ICD-10 codes (T17 = foreign body in the respiratory tract or T18.0 = foreign body in the mouth) was the most specific algorithm (96.9% [95%CI 95.8-97.8%]), while the combination of all FBAO-related ICD-10 codes and R06.8 (other breathing abnormalities) was the most sensitive (75.0% [95%CI 71.9-78.0]). We identified an additional 453 (35.4%) FBAO cases not transported by EMS (due to death or transport refusal), and therefore not linked to the hospital administrative databases. Of these unlinked encounters, 44 (9.7%) cases resulted in the patient's death. Conclusions: FBAO can be identified with reasonable accuracy using health administrative data and ICD-10 codes. All algorithms had a trade-off between sensitivity and specificity, and failed to identify a third of FBAO cases, of which 10% resulted in death.

Development of practice recommendations based on the Canadian Syncope Risk Score and identification of barriers and facilitators for implementation.

BACKGROUND: Wide variations in emergency department (ED) syncope management exist. The Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) was developed to predict the probability of 30-day serious outcomes after ED disposition. Study objectives were to evaluate the acceptability of proposed CSRS practice recommendations among providers and patients, and identify barriers and facilitators for CSRS use to guide disposition decisions. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 41 physicians involved in ED syncope and 35 ED patients with syncope. We used purposive sampling to ensure a variety of physician specialties and CSRS patient risk levels. Thematic analysis was completed by two independent coders with consensus meetings to resolve conflicts. Analysis proceeded in parallel with interviews until data saturation. RESULTS: The majority (97.6%; 40/41) of physicians agreed with discharge of low risk (CSRS ≤ 0) but opined that 'no follow up' changed to 'follow-up as needed'. Physicians indicated current practices do not align with the medium-risk recommendation to discharge patients with 15-day monitoring (CSRS = 1-3; due to lack of access to monitors and timely follow-up) and the high-risk recommendation (CSRS ≥ 4) to potentially discharge patients with 15-day monitoring. Physicians recommended brief hospitalization of high-risk patients due to patient safety concerns. Facilitators included the CSRS-based patient education and scores supporting their clinical gestalt. Patients reported receiving varying levels of information regarding syncope and post-ED care, were satisfied with care received and preferred less resource intensive options. CONCLUSION: Our recommendations based on the study results were: discharge of low-risk patients with physician follow-up as needed; discharge of medium-risk patients with 15-day cardiac monitoring and brief hospitalization of high-risk patients with 15-day cardiac monitoring if discharged. Patients preferred less resource intensive options, in line with CSRS recommended care. Implementation should leverage identified facilitators (e.g., patient education) and address the barriers (e.g., monitor access) to improve ED syncope care.

RéSUMé: CONTEXTE: La prise en charge des syncopes par les services d'urgence varie considérablement. Le Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) a été mis au point pour prédire la probabilité d'une issue grave à 30 jours après la prise en charge par le service des urgences. Les objectifs de l'étude étaient d'évaluer l'acceptabilité des recommandations pratiques proposées par le CSRS parmi les prestataires et les patients, et d'identifier les barrières et les facilitateurs de l'utilisation du CSRS pour guider les décisions de disposition. MéTHODES: Nous avons mené des entretiens semi-structurés avec 41 médecins impliqués dans la syncope aux urgences et 35 patients souffrant de syncope aux urgences. Nous avons utilisé un échantillonnage raisonné pour assurer une variété de spécialités médicales et de niveaux de risque pour les patients du CSRS. L'analyse thématique a été réalisée par deux codeurs indépendants, avec des réunions de consensus pour résoudre les conflits. L'analyse s'est déroulée parallèlement aux entretiens jusqu'à saturation des données. RéSULTATS: La majorité (97,6 % ; 40/41) des médecins étaient d'accord avec la sortie des patients à faible risque (CSRS ≤ 0), mais ont estimé que " pas de suivi " devait être remplacée par " suivi en fonction des besoins ". Les médecins ont indiqué que leurs pratiques actuelles ne sont pas conformes à la recommandation à risque moyen de faire sortir les patients avec une surveillance de 15 jours (CSRS = 1-3 ; en raison du manque d'accès aux moniteurs et au suivi en temps opportun) et à la recommandation à risque élevé (CSRS ≥ 4) de potentiellement faire sortir les patients avec une surveillance de 15 jours. Les médecins ont recommandé une brève hospitalisation des patients à haut risque pour des raisons de sécurité. Les facilitateurs comprenaient l'éducation des patients basée sur le CSRS et les scores soutenant leur gestalt clinique. Les patients ont déclaré avoir reçu différents niveaux d'information concernant la syncope et les soins post-urgence, étaient satisfaits des soins reçus et préféraient des options moins gourmandes en ressources. CONCLUSIONS: Nos recommandations basées sur les résultats de l'étude sont les suivantes : sortie des patients à faible risque avec suivi par un médecin si nécessaire ; la sortie des patients à risque moyen avec une surveillance cardiaque de 15 jours et une brève hospitalisation des patients à risque élevé avec une surveillance cardiaque de 15 jours en cas de sortie. Les patients ont préféré des options moins gourmandes en ressources, conformément aux soins recommandés par le CSRS. La mise en œuvre devrait s'appuyer sur les facilitateurs identifiés (par exemple, l'éducation des patients) et s'attaquer aux obstacles (par exemple, le contrôle de l'accès) pour améliorer les soins aux urgences en cas de syncope.

The burden of incidental SARS-CoV-2 infections in hospitalized patients across pandemic waves in Canada.

Many health authorities differentiate hospitalizations in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 as being "for COVID-19" (due to direct manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 infection) versus being an "incidental" finding in someone admitted for an unrelated condition. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all SARS-CoV-2 infected patients hospitalized via 47 Canadian emergency departments, March 2020-July 2022 to determine whether hospitalizations with "incidental" SARS-CoV-2 infection are less of a burden to patients and the healthcare system. Using a priori standardized definitions applied to hospital discharge diagnoses in 14,290 patients, we characterized COVID-19 as (i) the "Direct" cause for the hospitalization (70%), (ii) a potential "Contributing" factor for the hospitalization (4%), or (iii) an "Incidental" finding that did not influence the need for admission (26%). The proportion of incidental SARS-CoV-2 infections rose from 10% in Wave 1 to 41% during the Omicron wave. Patients with COVID-19 as the direct cause of hospitalization exhibited significantly longer LOS (mean 13.8 versus 12.1 days), were more likely to require critical care (22% versus 11%), receive COVID-19-specific therapies (55% versus 19%), and die (17% versus 9%) compared to patients with Incidental SARS-CoV-2 infections. However, patients hospitalized with incidental SARS-CoV-2 infection still exhibited substantial morbidity/mortality and hospital resource use.

Risk Scores for Clinical Risk Stratification of Emergency Department Patients With Chest Pain but No Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Chest pain is a common cause for emergency department (ED) presentations. After myocardial infarction (MI) has been ruled out by means of electrocardiography and troponin testing, decisions around anatomic or functional testing may be informed by clinical risk scores. We conducted a systematic review to synthesize evidence of the prognostic performance of chest pain risk scores among ED patients who have had MI ruled out by means of a high-sensitivity troponin assay. METHODS: We queried multiple databases from inception to May 17, 2022. We included studies that quantified risk of 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE), at different cutoffs of clinical risk scores, among adult patients who had MI ruled out by means of a high-sensitivity troponin assay. Prognostic performance of each score was synthesized and described, but meta-analysis was not possible. RESULTS: Six studies met inclusion criteria. Short-term MACE risk among patients who had MI ruled out by means of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin assays was very low. The HEART score, with a cutoff of 3 or less, predicted a very low risk of MACE among the greatest proportion of patients. Other scores had lower sensitivity or classified fewer patients as low risk. CONCLUSIONS: The HEART score with a cutoff value of 3 or less accurately identified the greatest number of patients at low risk of 30-day MACE. However, MACE risk among patients who have MI ruled out by means of high-sensitivity troponin testing is sufficiently low that clinical risk stratification or noninvasive testing may be of little additional value in identifying patients with coronary disease.

Prognostic association between d-dimer thresholds and 30-day pulmonary embolism diagnosis among emergency department patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection: a Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network study.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to quantify the prognostic association between various D-dimer thresholds and 30-day PE diagnosis among emergency department (ED) patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients enrolled in the Canadian COVID-19 ED Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) registry from March 1, 2020 to July 2, 2021. We included consecutive adults (≥ 18 years) presenting to 49 EDs with chest pain, shortness of breath, hypoxia, syncope, presyncope, or hemoptysis who were tested for both SARS-CoV-2 and D-dimer at index ED visit. The primary outcome measure was the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value of D-dimer test thresholds for the outcome of 30-day PE diagnosis. RESULTS: Among 10,837 patients included in our study, 404 (3.7%) were diagnosed with PE at 30-days. A standard D-Dimer threshold of 500 ng/mL had a sensitivity of 97.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 95.8-99.0%), specificity of 40.9% (95% CI 39.9-41.8%), and negative predictive value of 99.8% (95% CI 99.6-99.9%). An age-adjusted D-dimer threshold had a sensitivity of 96.0% (95% CI 93.6-97.7%), specificity of 48.5% (95% CI 47.5-49.4%), and negative predictive value of 99.7% (95% CI 99.5-99.8%). D-dimer testing had slightly lower prognostic performance among SARS-CoV-2 positive compared to SARS-CoV-2 negative patients in predicting 30-day PE diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Among ED patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2, the standard 500 ng/mL and age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds were comparable for the prediction of PE at 30-days. The prognostic performance of D-dimer was lower among SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04702945.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'objectif principal était de quantifier l'association pronostique entre différents seuils de D-dimères et le diagnostic d'EP à 30 jours chez les patients des services d'urgence suspectés d'être infectés par le SRAS-CoV-2. MéTHODES: Il s'agissait d'une étude rétrospective des patients inscrits au registre du réseau canadien de réponse rapide aux urgences COVID-19 (CCEDRRN) du 1er mars 2020 au 2 juillet 2021. Nous avons inclus des adultes consécutifs (>18 ans) se présentant dans 49 services d'urgence pour une douleur thoracique, un essoufflement, une hypoxie, une syncope, une présyncope ou une hémoptysie et qui ont été testés à la fois pour le SRAS-CoV-2 et les D-dimères lors de la visite de référence aux urgences. Le principal critère d'évaluation était la sensibilité, la spécificité et la valeur prédictive négative des seuils du test des D-dimères pour le diagnostic de l'EP à 30 jours. RéSULTATS: Parmi les 10 837 patients inclus dans notre étude, 404 (3,7 %) ont reçu un diagnostic d'EP à 30 jours. Un seuil standard de D-Dimer de 500 ng/mL avait une sensibilité de 97,8 % (intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % 95,8-99,0 %), une spécificité de 40,9 % (IC à 95 % 39,9-41,8 %) et une valeur prédictive négative de 99,8 % (IC à 95 % 99,6-99,9 %). Un seuil de D-dimères ajusté à l'âge avait une sensibilité de 96,0% (IC à 95 % 93,6-97,7 %), une spécificité de 48,5% (IC à 95 % 47,5-49,4 %) et une valeur prédictive négative de 99,7 % (IC à 95 % 99,5-99,8 %). Le test des D-dimères avait une performance pronostique légèrement inférieure chez les patients positifs pour le SRAS-CoV-2 par rapport aux patients négatifs pour le SRAS-CoV-2 en ce qui concerne la prédiction du diagnostic d'EP à 30 jours. CONCLUSIONS: Chez les patients des urgences suspectés d'être atteints du SRAS-CoV-2, les seuils standard de 500 ng/ml et les seuils de D-dimères ajustés à l'âge étaient comparables pour la prédiction de l'EP à 30 jours. La performance pronostique des D-dimères était plus faible chez les patients positifs pour le SRAS-CoV-2. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'ESSAI: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04702945.

Diagnostic yield of screening for SARS-CoV-2 among patients admitted to hospital for alternate diagnoses: an observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic yield of screening patients for SARS-CoV-2 who were admitted with a diagnosis unrelated to COVID-19 and to identify risk factors for positive tests. DESIGN: Cohort from the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network registry. SETTING: 30 acute care hospitals across Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Patients hospitalised for non-COVID-19-related diagnoses who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 between 1 March and 29 December 2020. MAIN OUTCOME: Positive nucleic acid amplification test for SARS-CoV-2. OUTCOME MEASURE: Diagnostic yield. RESULTS: We enrolled 15 690 consecutive eligible adults who were admitted to hospital without clinically suspected COVID-19. Among these patients, 122 tested positive for COVID-19, resulting in a diagnostic yield of 0.8% (95% CI 0.64% to 0.92%). Factors associated with a positive test included presence of fever, being a healthcare worker, having a positive household contact or institutional exposure, and living in an area with higher 7-day average incident COVID-19 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Universal screening of hospitalised patients for COVID-19 across two pandemic waves had a low diagnostic yield and should be informed by individual-level risk assessment in addition to regional COVID-19 prevalence. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04702945.

Post-Concussion Symptoms Rule: Derivation and Validation of a Clinical Decision Rule for Early Prediction of Persistent Symptoms after a Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.

Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is a common problem. Depending on diagnostic criteria, 13 to 62% of those patients develop persistent post-concussion symptoms (PPCS). The main objective of this prospective multi-center study is to derive and validate a clinical decision rule (CDR) for the early prediction of PPCS. Patients aged ≥14 years were included if they presented to one of our seven participating emergency departments (EDs) within 24 h of an mTBI. Clinical data were collected in the ED, and symptom evolution was assessed at 7, 30 and 90 days post-injury using the Rivermead Post-Concussion Questionnaire (RPQ). The primary outcome was PPCS at 90 days after mTBI. A predictive model called the Post-Concussion Symptoms Rule (PoCS Rule) was developed using the methodological standards for CDR. Of the 1083 analyzed patients (471 and 612 for the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively), 15.6% had PPCS. The final model included the following factors assessed in the ED: age, sex, history of prior TBI or mental health disorder, headache in ED, cervical sprain and hemorrhage on computed tomography. The 7-day follow-up identified additional risk factors: headaches, sleep disturbance, fatigue, sensitivity to light, and RPQ ≥21. The PoCS Rule had a sensitivity of 91.4% and 89.6%, a specificity of 53.8% and 44.7% and a negative predictive value of 97.2% and 95.8% in the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. The PoCS Rule will help emergency physicians quickly stratify the risk of PPCS in mTBI patients and better plan post-discharge resources.

Ecografía frente a radiografía de tórax para el diagnóstico de neumotórax en pacientes traumáticos en el servicio de urgencias / Chest ultrasonography versus supine chest radiography for diagnosis of pneumothorax in trauma patients in the emergency department

No disponible

Personalised risk prediction following emergency department assessment for syncope.

BACKGROUND: Published risk tools do not provide possible management options for syncope in the emergency department (ED). Using the 30-day observed risk estimates based on the Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS), we developed personalised risk prediction to guide management decisions. METHODS: We pooled previously reported data from two large cohort studies, the CSRS derivation and validation cohorts, that prospectively enrolled adults (≥16 years) with syncope at 11 Canadian EDs between 2010 and 2018. Using this larger cohort, we calculated the CSRS calibration and discrimination, and determined with greater precision than in previous studies the 30-day risk of adjudicated serious outcomes not identified during the index ED evaluation depending on the CSRS and the risk category. Based on these findings, we developed an on-line calculator and pictorial decision aids. RESULTS: 8233 patients were included of whom 295 (3.6%, 95% CI 3.2% to 4.0%) experienced 30-day serious outcomes. The calibration slope was 1.0, and the area under the curve was 0.88 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.91). The observed risk increased from 0.3% (95% CI 0.2% to 0.5%) in the very-low-risk group (CSRS -3 to -2) to 42.7% (95% CI 35.0% to 50.7%), in the very-high-risk (CSRS≥+6) group (Cochrane-Armitage trend test p<0.001). Among the very-low and low-risk patients (score -3 to 0), ≤1.0% had any serious outcome, there was one death due to sepsis and none suffered a ventricular arrhythmia. Among the medium-risk patients (score +1 to+3), 7.8% had serious outcomes, with <1% death, and a serious outcome was present in >20% of high/very-high-risk patients (score +4 to+11) including 4%-6% deaths. The online calculator and the pictorial aids can be found at: https://teamvenk.com/csrs CONCLUSIONS: 30-day observed risk estimates from a large cohort of patients can be obtained for management decision-making. Our work suggests very-low-risk and low-risk patients may be discharged, discussion with patients regarding investigations and disposition are needed for medium-risk patients, and high-risk patients should be hospitalised. The online calculator, accompanied by pictorial decision aids for the CSRS, may assist in discussion with patients.

External validation of a low HEAR score to identify emergency department chest pain patients at very low risk of major adverse cardiac events without troponin testing.

BACKGROUND: The history, ECG, age, risk factor (HEAR) score has been proposed to identify patients at sufficiently low risk of acute coronary syndrome that they may not require troponin testing. The objective of this study was to externally validate a low HEAR score to identify emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain at very low risk of 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE). METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort of patients requiring troponin testing to rule out myocardial infarction (MI) in a large urban ED. HEAR scores were calculated in two cohorts: (1) patients with no known history of coronary artery disease (CAD); and (2) all eligible patients. The proportion of patients classified as very low risk, sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios at each cut-off were quantified for index acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and 30-day MACE at HEAR = 0 and HEAR ≤ 1 thresholds. RESULTS: Of the 1150 patients included in this study, 820 (71.3%) had no history of CAD, 97 (8.4%) had index AMI and 123 (10.7%) had 30-day MACE. In patients with no prior history of CAD, HEAR ≤ 1 identified 202 (24.6%) of patients as very low risk for 30-day MACE with 98.4% (95% CI 91.6-99.9%) sensitivity. Among all patients, HEAR ≤ 1 identified 202 (17.6%) patients as very low risk for 30-day MACE with 99.2% (95% CI 95.6-99.9%) sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: A HEAR score ≤ 1 can identify more than 17% of all patients as very low risk for index AMI and 30-day MACE and unlikely to benefit from troponin testing. Broad implementation of this strategy could lead to significant resource savings.

RéSUMé: CONTEXTE: Le score HEAR (History, ECG, Age, Risk Factor) a été proposé pour identifier les patients présentant un risque suffisamment faible de syndrome coronarien aigu pour ne pas nécessiter de test à la troponine. L'objectif de cette étude était de valider à l'externe un faible score HEAR afin d'identifier les patients du service d'urgence (DE) souffrant de douleurs thoraciques à très faible risque d'événements cardiaques indésirables majeurs (MACE) de 30 jours. MéTHODES: Il s'agissait d'une analyse secondaire d'une cohorte prospective de patients nécessitant un test à la troponine pour exclure un infarctus du myocarde (IM) dans un grand service d'urgence urbain. Les scores HEAR ont été calculés dans deux cohortes : (1) les patients sans antécédents connus de maladie coronarienne (MC) ; et (2) tous les patients éligibles. La proportion de patients classés à très faible risque, la sensibilité, la spécificité, les valeurs prédictives et les rapports de vraisemblance à chaque seuil ont été quantifiés pour l'infarctus aigu du myocarde (IAM) de l'index et la MACE à 30 jours aux seuils HEAR = 0 et HEAR ≤ 1. RéSULTATS: Sur les 1 150 patients inclus dans cette étude, 820 (71.3%) n'avaient pas d'antécédents de coronaropathie, 97 (8.4%) avaient un IAM index et 123 (10.7%) avaient une MACE à 30 jours. Chez les patients sans antécédents de coronaropathie, HEAR ≤ 1 a identifié 202 (24,6%) des patients comme présentant un très faible risque de MACE à 30 jours avec une sensibilité de 98.4% (IC 95% 91.6­99.9%). Parmi tous les patients, HEAR ≤ 1 a identifié 202 (17.6%) patients comme présentant un très faible risque de MACE à 30 jours avec une sensibilité de 99.2% (IC 95% 95.6­99.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Un score HEAR ≤ 1 peut identifier plus de 17% de tous les patients comme étant à très faible risque d'IAM d'index et de MACE à 30 jours et peu susceptibles de bénéficier d'un test à la troponine. La mise en œuvre à grande envergure de cette stratégie pourrait permettre de réaliser d'importantes économies de ressources.

A comparative evaluation of the strengths of association between different emergency department crowding metrics and repeat visits within 72 hours.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare strengths of association among multiple emergency department (ED) input, throughput and output metrics and the outcome of 72-h ED re-visits. METHODS: This database analysis used healthcare administrative data from three urban, university-affiliated EDs in Calgary, Canada, calendar years 2010-2014. We used data from all patients presenting to participating EDs during the study period, and the primary analysis was performed on patients discharged from the ED. Regression models quantified the association between input, throughput and output metrics and the risk of return ED visit within 72 h of discharge from the index ED encounter. Strength of association between the crowding metrics and 72-h ED re-visits was compared using Akaike's Information Criterion. RESULTS: The findings of this study are based on data from 845,588 patient encounters ending in discharge. The input metric with the strongest association with 72-h re-visits was median ED waiting time. The throughput metric with the strongest association with 72-h re-visits was the ED occupancy. The output metric with the strongest association with 72-h re-visits was the median inpatient boarding time. CONCLUSION: Input, throughput and output metrics are all associated with 72-h re-visits. Delays in any of these operational phases have detrimental effects on patient outcomes. ED waiting time, ED occupancy, and boarding times are the most meaningful input, throughput and output metrics. These should be the preferred metrics for quantifying ED crowding in research and quality improvement efforts, and for clinicians to monitor ED crowding in real time.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Nous avons cherché à comparer la force de l'association entre plusieurs paramètres d'entrée, de débit et de sortie des services d'urgence (SU) et l'issue des nouvelles visites aux SU après 72 heures. MéTHODES: Cette analyse de base de données a utilisé des données administratives sur les soins de santé de trois services d'urgence urbains affiliés à une université à Calgary, au Canada, pour les années civiles 2010-2014. Nous avons utilisé les données de tous les patients se présentant aux urgences participantes pendant la période de l'étude, et l'analyse primaire a porté sur les patients sortis des urgences. Des modèles de régression ont quantifié l'association entre les paramètres d'entrée, de débit et de sortie et le risque d'une nouvelle visite aux urgences dans les 72 heures suivant la sortie des urgences de référence. La force de l'association entre les paramètres d'encombrement et les réadmissions aux urgences à 72 heures a été comparée à l'aide du critère d'information d'Akaike. RéSULTATS: Les résultats de cette étude sont basés sur les données de 845 588 rencontres de patients se terminant par une sortie. La mesure d'entrée présentant la plus forte association avec les nouvelles visites dans les 72 heures était le temps d'attente médian aux urgences. La mesure du débit avec la plus forte association avec les visites répétées de 72 heures était l'occupation par le SU. La métrique de sortie présentant la plus forte association avec les revisites à 72 heures était la durée médiane d'embarquement des patients hospitalisés. CONCLUSIONS: Les mesures d'entrée, de débit et de sortie sont toutes associées aux revisites de 72 heures. Les retards dans l'une de ces phases opérationnelles ont des effets néfastes sur les résultats pour les patients. Le temps d'attente aux urgences, le taux d'occupation des urgences et le temps d'embarquement sont les paramètres les plus significatifs en termes d'entrée, de débit et de sortie. Ces paramètres devraient être privilégiés pour quantifier l'encombrement des urgences dans le cadre de la recherche et des efforts d'amélioration de la qualité, et pour permettre aux cliniciens de surveiller l'encombrement des urgences en temps réel.

CCEDRRN COVID-19 Infection Score (CCIS): development and validation in a Canadian cohort of a clinical risk score to predict SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a clinical risk score that can accurately quantify the probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients presenting to an emergency department without the need for laboratory testing. DESIGN: Cohort study of participants in the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) registry. Regression models were fitted to predict a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result using clinical and demographic predictors, as well as an indicator of local SARS-CoV-2 incidence. SETTING: 32 emergency departments in eight Canadian provinces. PARTICIPANTS: 27 665 consecutively enrolled patients who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 in participating emergency departments between 1 March and 30 October 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Positive SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test result within 14 days of an index emergency department encounter for suspected COVID-19 disease. RESULTS: We derived a 10-item CCEDRRN COVID-19 Infection Score using data from 21 743 patients. This score included variables from history and physical examination and an indicator of local disease incidence. The score had a c-statistic of 0.838 with excellent calibration. We externally validated the rule in 5295 patients. The score maintained excellent discrimination and calibration and had superior performance compared with another previously published risk score. Score cut-offs were identified that can rule-in or rule-out SARS-CoV-2 infection without the need for nucleic acid testing with 97.4% sensitivity (95% CI 96.4 to 98.3) and 95.9% specificity (95% CI 95.5 to 96.0). CONCLUSIONS: The CCEDRRN COVID-19 Infection Score uses clinical characteristics and publicly available indicators of disease incidence to quantify a patient's probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The score can identify patients at sufficiently high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection to warrant isolation and empirical therapy prior to test confirmation while also identifying patients at sufficiently low risk of infection that they may not need testing. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04702945.