Utility of the FebriDx point-of-care assay in supporting a triage algorithm for medical admissions with possible COVID-19: an observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a triage algorithm used to identify and isolate patients with suspected COVID-19 among medical patients needing admission to hospital using simple clinical criteria and the FebriDx assay. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort. SETTING: Large acute National Health Service hospital in London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: All medical admissions from the emergency department between 10 August 2020 and 4 November 2020 with a valid SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR result. INTERVENTIONS: Medical admissions were triaged as likely, possible or unlikely COVID-19 based on clinical criteria. Patients triaged as possible COVID-19 underwent FebriDx lateral flow assay on capillary blood, and those positive for myxovirus resistance protein A (a host response protein) were managed as likely COVID-19. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity and predictive values) of the algorithm and the FebriDx assay using SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR from nasopharyngeal swabs as the reference standard. RESULTS: 4.0% (136) of 3443 medical admissions had RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19. Prevalence of COVID-19 was 46% (80/175) in those triaged as likely, 4.1% (50/1225) in possible and 0.3% (6/2033) in unlikely COVID-19. Using a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR reference standard, clinical triage had sensitivity of 96% (95% CI 91% to 98%) and specificity of 61.5% (95% CI 59.8% to 63.1%), while the triage algorithm including FebriDx had sensitivity of 93% (95% CI 87% to 96%) and specificity of 86.4% (95% CI 85.2% to 87.5%). While 2033 patients were deemed not to require isolation using clinical criteria alone, the addition of FebriDx to clinical triage allowed a further 826 patients to be released from isolation, reducing the need for isolation rooms by 9.5 per day, 95% CI 8.9 to 10.2. Ten patients missed by the algorithm had mild or asymptomatic COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: A triage algorithm including the FebriDx assay had good sensitivity and was useful to 'rule-out' COVID-19 among medical admissions to hospital.

Development of the Recommended Summary Plan for eEmergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT).

INTRODUCTION: Do-not-attempt-cardiopulmonary-resuscitation (DNACPR) practice has been shown to be variable and sub-optimal. This paper describes the development of the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT). ReSPECT is a process which encourages shared understanding of a patient's condition and what outcomes they value and fear, before recording clinical recommendations about cardiopulmonary-resuscitation (CPR) within a broader plan for emergency care and treatment. METHODS: ReSPECT was developed iteratively, with integral stakeholder engagement, informed by the Knowledge-to-Action cycle. Mixed methods included: synthesis of existing literature; a national online consultation exercise; cognitive interviews with users; a patient-public involvement (PPI) workshop and a usability pilot, to ensure acceptability by both patients and professionals. RESULTS: The majority (89%) of consultation respondents supported the concept of emergency care and treatment plans. Key features identified in the evaluation and incorporated into ReSPECT were: The importance of discussions between patient and clinician to inform realistic treatment preferences and clarity in the resulting recommendations recorded by the clinician on the form. The process is compliant with UK mental capacity laws. Documentation should be recognised across all health and care settings. There should be opportunity for timely review based on individual need. CONCLUSION: ReSPECT is designed to facilitate discussions about a person's preferences to inform emergency care and treatment plans (including CPR) for use across all health and care settings. It has been developed iteratively with a range of stakeholders. Further research will be needed to assess the influence of ReSPECT on patient-centred decisions, experience and health outcomes.

An update on: meta-analysis of medical and non-medicaltreatments of the prodromal phase of psychotic illness in at risk mental states.

INTRODUCTION: There are now many existing studies which assess the treatments available for 'at risk mental states', as patients who are believed to be in the prodromal phase of psychotic illness are referred to. However, concerns regarding side effects of possible treatments remain. We here conduct a meta-analysis of the studies available up to July 2016. The aim of this study is to decide what would be the best treatment for 'at high risk patients'. RESULTS: 18 studies were selected for inclusion; 12 showed significance, 5 did not and one tended towards significance. Both antipsychotic medication and psychological intervention show mixed results with cognitive behavioral therapy and olanzapine/amisulpride coming out on top. Omega 3 poly-unsaturated acid also shows promising and consistent results. DISCUSSION: Treatments appear promising but a balance needs to be kept between adverse events and effectiveness of preventing psychosis. CONCLUSION: It is necessary to search further for treatments in order to identify effective treatments with fewer adverse side-effects in this phase of psychotic illness.