Cervical spine immobilisation following blunt trauma in pre-hospital and emergency care: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether different cervical spine immobilisation strategies (full immobilisation, movement minimisation or no immobilisation), impact neurological and/or other outcomes for patients with suspected cervical spinal injury in the pre-hospital and emergency department setting. DESIGN: Systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and two research registers were searched until September 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All comparative studies (prospective or retrospective) that examined the potential benefits and/or harms of immobilisation practices during pre-hospital and emergency care of patients with a potential cervical spine injury (pre-imaging) following blunt trauma. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently selected and extracted data. Risk of bias was appraised using the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies. Data were synthesised without meta-analysis. RESULTS: Six observational studies met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality was variable, with most studies having serious or critical risk of bias. The effect of cervical spine immobilisation practices such as full immobilisation or movement minimisation during pre-hospital and emergency care did not show clear evidence of benefit for the prevention of neurological deterioration, spinal injuries and death compared with no immobilisation. However, increased pain, discomfort and anatomical complications were associated with collar application during immobilisation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limited evidence, weak designs and limited generalisability, the available data suggest that pre-hospital cervical spine immobilisation (full immobilisation or movement minimisation) was of uncertain value due to the lack of demonstrable benefit and may lead to potential complications and adverse outcomes. High-quality randomised comparative studies are required to address this important question. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO REGISTRATION Fiona Lecky, Abdullah Pandor, Munira Essat, Anthea Sutton, Carl Marincowitz, Gordon Fuller, Stuart Reid, Jason Smith. A systematic review of cervical spine immobilisation following blunt trauma in pre-hospital and emergency care. PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022349600 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022349600.

Prehospital early warning scores for adults with suspected sepsis: the PHEWS observational cohort and decision-analytic modelling study.

Background: Guidelines for sepsis recommend treating those at highest risk within 1 hour. The emergency care system can only achieve this if sepsis is recognised and prioritised. Ambulance services can use prehospital early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to prioritise patients for treatment or early assessment in the emergency department. Objectives: To determine the accuracy, impact and cost-effectiveness of using early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to identify sepsis requiring urgent treatment. Design: Retrospective diagnostic cohort study and decision-analytic modelling of operational consequences and cost-effectiveness. Setting: Two ambulance services and four acute hospitals in England. Participants: Adults transported to hospital by emergency ambulance, excluding episodes with injury, mental health problems, cardiac arrest, direct transfer to specialist services, or no vital signs recorded. Interventions: Twenty-one early warning scores used alongside paramedic diagnostic impression, categorised as sepsis, infection, non-specific presentation, or other specific presentation. Main outcome measures: Proportion of cases prioritised at the four hospitals; diagnostic accuracy for the sepsis-3 definition of sepsis and receiving urgent treatment (primary reference standard); daily number of cases with and without sepsis prioritised at a large and a small hospital; the minimum treatment effect associated with prioritisation at which each strategy would be cost-effective, compared to no prioritisation, assuming willingness to pay £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results: Data from 95,022 episodes involving 71,204 patients across four hospitals showed that most early warning scores operating at their pre-specified thresholds would prioritise more than 10% of cases when applied to non-specific attendances or all attendances. Data from 12,870 episodes at one hospital identified 348 (2.7%) with the primary reference standard. The National Early Warning Score, version 2 (NEWS2), had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve when applied only to patients with a paramedic diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection (0.756, 95% confidence interval 0.729 to 0.783) or sepsis alone (0.655, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.68). None of the strategies provided high sensitivity (> 0.8) with acceptable positive predictive value (> 0.15). NEWS2 provided combinations of sensitivity and specificity that were similar or superior to all other early warning scores. Applying NEWS2 to paramedic diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection with thresholds of > 4, > 6 and > 8 respectively provided sensitivities and positive predictive values (95% confidence interval) of 0.522 (0.469 to 0.574) and 0.216 (0.189 to 0.245), 0.447 (0.395 to 0.499) and 0.274 (0.239 to 0.313), and 0.314 (0.268 to 0.365) and 0.333 (confidence interval 0.284 to 0.386). The mortality relative risk reduction from prioritisation at which each strategy would be cost-effective exceeded 0.975 for all strategies analysed. Limitations: We estimated accuracy using a sample of older patients at one hospital. Reliable evidence was not available to estimate the effectiveness of prioritisation in the decision-analytic modelling. Conclusions: No strategy is ideal but using NEWS2, in patients with a paramedic diagnostic impression of infection or sepsis could identify one-third to half of sepsis cases without prioritising unmanageable numbers. No other score provided clearly superior accuracy to NEWS2. Research is needed to develop better definition, diagnosis and treatments for sepsis. Study registration: This study is registered as Research Registry (reference: researchregistry5268). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/136/10) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 16. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Sepsis is a life-threatening condition in which an abnormal response to infection causes heart, lung or kidney failure. People with sepsis need urgent treatment. They need to be prioritised at the emergency department rather than waiting in the queue. Paramedics attempt to identify people with possible sepsis using an early warning score (based on simple measurements, such as blood pressure and heart rate) alongside their impression of the patient's diagnosis. They can then alert the hospital to assess the patient quickly. However, an inaccurate early warning score might miss cases of sepsis or unnecessarily prioritise people without sepsis. We aimed to measure how accurately early warning scores identified people with sepsis when used alongside paramedic diagnostic impression. We collected data from 71,204 people that two ambulance services transported to four different hospitals in 2019. We recorded paramedic diagnostic impressions and calculated early warning scores for each patient. At one hospital, we linked ambulance records to hospital records and identified who had sepsis. We then calculated the accuracy of using the scores alongside diagnostic impression to diagnose sepsis. Finally, we used modelling to predict how many patients (with and without sepsis) paramedics would prioritise using different strategies based on early warning scores and diagnostic impression. We found that none of the currently available early warning scores were ideal. When they were applied to all patients, they prioritised too many people. When they were only applied to patients whom the paramedics thought had infection, they missed many cases of sepsis. The NEWS2, score, which ambulance services already use, was as good as or better than all the other scores we studied. We found that using the NEWS2, score in people with a paramedic impression of infection could achieve a reasonable balance between prioritising too many patients and avoiding missing patients with sepsis.

Prognostic accuracy of eight triage scores in suspected COVID-19 in an Emergency Department low-income setting: An observational cohort study.

Introduction: Previous studies deriving and validating triage scores for patients with suspected COVID-19 in Emergency Department settings have been conducted in high- or middle-income settings. We assessed eight triage scores' accuracy for death or organ support in patients with suspected COVID-19 in Sudan. Methods: We conducted an observational cohort study using Covid-19 registry data from eight emergency unit isolation centres in Khartoum State, Sudan. We assessed performance of eight triage scores including: PRIEST, LMIC-PRIEST, NEWS2, TEWS, the WHO algorithm, CRB-65, Quick COVID-19 Severity Index and PMEWS in suspected COVID-19. A composite primary outcome included death, ventilation or ICU admission. Results: In total 874 (33.84 %, 95 % CI:32.04 % to 35.69 %) of 2,583 patients died, required intubation/non-invasive ventilation or HDU/ICU admission . All risk-stratification scores assessed had worse estimated discrimination in this setting, compared to studies conducted in higher-income settings: C-statistic range for primary outcome: 0.56-0.64. At previously recommended thresholds NEWS2, PRIEST and LMIC-PRIEST had high estimated sensitivities (≥0.95) for the primary outcome. However, the high baseline risk meant that low-risk patients identified at these thresholds still had a between 8 % and 17 % risk of death, ventilation or ICU admission. Conclusion: None of the triage scores assessed demonstrated sufficient accuracy to be used clinically. This is likely due to differences in the health care system and population (23 % of patients died) compared to higher-income settings in which the scores were developed. Risk-stratification scores developed in this setting are needed to provide the necessary accuracy to aid triage of patients with suspected COVID-19.

Prehospital early warning scores for adults with suspected sepsis: retrospective diagnostic cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Ambulance services need to identify and prioritise patients with sepsis for early hospital assessment. We aimed to determine the accuracy of early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to identify sepsis that required urgent treatment. METHODS: We undertook a retrospective diagnostic cohort study involving adult emergency medical cases transported to Sheffield Teaching Hospitals ED by Yorkshire Ambulance Service in 2019. We used routine ambulance service data to calculate 21 early warning scores and categorise paramedic diagnostic impressions as sepsis, infection, non-specific presentation or other presentation. We linked cases to hospital records and identified those meeting the sepsis-3 definition who received urgent hospital treatment for sepsis (reference standard). Analysis determined the accuracy of strategies that combined early warning scores at varying thresholds for positivity with paramedic diagnostic impression. RESULTS: We linked 12 870/24 955 (51.6%) cases and identified 348/12 870 (2.7%) with a positive reference standard. None of the strategies provided sensitivity greater than 0.80 with positive predictive value greater than 0.15. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the National Early Warning Score, version 2 (NEWS2) applied to patients with a diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection was 0.756 (95% CI 0.729, 0.783). No other early warning score provided clearly superior accuracy to NEWS2. Paramedic impression of sepsis or infection had sensitivity of 0.572 (0.519, 0.623) and positive predictive value of 0.156 (0.137, 0.176). NEWS2 thresholds of >4, >6 and >8 applied to patients with a diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection, respectively, provided sensitivities and positive predictive values of 0.522 (0.469, 0.574) and 0.216 (0.189, 0.245), 0.447 (0.395, 0.499) and 0.274 (0.239, 0.313), and 0.314 (0.268, 0.365) and 0.333 (0.284, 0.386). CONCLUSION: No strategy is ideal but using NEWS2 alongside paramedic diagnostic impression of infection or sepsis could identify one-third to half of sepsis cases without prioritising unmanageable numbers. No other score provided clearly superior accuracy to NEWS2. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: researchregistry5268, https://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry%23home/registrationdetails/5de7bbd97ca5b50015041c33/.

Training and testing of a gradient boosted machine learning model to predict adverse outcome in patients presenting to emergency departments with suspected covid-19 infection in a middle-income setting.

COVID-19 infection rates remain high in South Africa. Clinical prediction models may be helpful for rapid triage, and supporting clinical decision making, for patients with suspected COVID-19 infection. The Western Cape, South Africa, has integrated electronic health care data facilitating large-scale linked routine datasets. The aim of this study was to develop a machine learning model to predict adverse outcome in patients presenting with suspected COVID-19 suitable for use in a middle-income setting. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using linked, routine data, from patients presenting with suspected COVID-19 infection to public-sector emergency departments (EDs) in the Western Cape, South Africa between 27th August 2020 and 31st October 2021. The primary outcome was death or critical care admission at 30 days. An XGBoost machine learning model was trained and internally tested using split-sample validation. External validation was performed in 3 test cohorts: Western Cape patients presenting during the Omicron COVID-19 wave, a UK cohort during the ancestral COVID-19 wave, and a Sudanese cohort during ancestral and Eta waves. A total of 282,051 cases were included in a complete case training dataset. The prevalence of 30-day adverse outcome was 4.0%. The most important features for predicting adverse outcome were the requirement for supplemental oxygen, peripheral oxygen saturations, level of consciousness and age. Internal validation using split-sample test data revealed excellent discrimination (C-statistic 0.91, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.91) and calibration (CITL of 1.05). The model achieved C-statistics of 0.84 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.85), 0.72 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.73), and 0.62, (95% CI 0.59 to 0.65) in the Omicron, UK, and Sudanese test cohorts. Results were materially unchanged in sensitivity analyses examining missing data. An XGBoost machine learning model achieved good discrimination and calibration in prediction of adverse outcome in patients presenting with suspected COVID19 to Western Cape EDs. Performance was reduced in temporal and geographical external validation.

Heading Frequency and Risk of Cognitive Impairment in Retired Male Professional Soccer Players.

Importance: Although professional soccer players appear to be at higher risk of neurodegenerative disease, the reason remains unknown. Objective: To examine whether heading frequency is associated with risk of cognitive impairment in retired professional soccer players. Design, Setting, and Participants: A UK nationwide cross-sectional study was conducted between August 15, 2020, and December 31, 2021, in 459 retired male professional soccer players older than 45 years and registered with the Professional Footballers' Association or a League Club Players' Association. Exposure: Data on heading frequency in 3 bands-0 to 5, 6 to 15, and more than 15 times per match or training session and other soccer-specific risk factors, such as player position and concussion-were collected through a self-reported questionnaire. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cognitive impairment was defined using the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status-modified as scores of less than or equal to 21. Hopkins Verbal Learning Test, verbal fluency, and independent activities of daily living were also assessed. Test Your Memory and physician-diagnosed dementia/Alzheimer disease were self-reported via the questionnaire. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% CIs were calculated. Results: Of 468 retired male professional soccer players who completed questionnaires (mean [SD] age, 63.68 [10.48]; body mass index, 27.22 [2.89]), 459 reported heading frequency: 114 headed 0 to 5 times, 185 headed 6 to 15 times, 160 headed more than 15 times per match, and 125 headed 0 to 5 times, 174 headed 6 to 15 times, and 160 headed more than 15 times per training session during their careers. The prevalence of cognitive impairment was 9.78% (0-5 times), 14.78% (6-15 times), and 15.20% (>15 times) per match (P = .51). Compared with players reporting 0 to 5 headers per match, the AORs were 2.71 (95% CI, 0.89-8.25) for players reporting 6 to 15 headers per match and 3.53 (95% CI, 1.13-11.04) for players reporting more than 15 headers per match (P = .03 for trend). Corresponding AORs for heading frequency per training session were 2.38 (95% CI, 0.82-6.95) for those reporting 6 to 15, and 3.40 (95% CI, 1.13-10.23) for those reporting more than 15 in comparison with those who reported 0 to 5 (P = .03 for trend). Concussion involving memory loss was also associated with a greater risk of cognitive impairment (AOR, 3.16; 95% CI, 1.08-9.22). Similar results were observed with other cognitive tests and self-reported physician-diagnosed dementia/Alzheimer disease. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that repetitive heading during a professional soccer career is associated with an increased risk of cognitive impairment in later life. Further study is needed to establish the upper threshold for heading frequency to mitigate this risk.

LMIC-PRIEST: Derivation and validation of a clinical severity score for acutely ill adults with suspected COVID-19 in a middle-income setting.

BACKGROUND: Uneven vaccination and less resilient health care systems mean hospitals in LMICs are at risk of being overwhelmed during periods of increased COVID-19 infection. Risk-scores proposed for rapid triage of need for admission from the emergency department (ED) have been developed in higher-income settings during initial waves of the pandemic. METHODS: Routinely collected data for public hospitals in the Western Cape, South Africa from the 27th August 2020 to 11th March 2022 were used to derive a cohort of 446,084 ED patients with suspected COVID-19. The primary outcome was death or ICU admission at 30 days. The cohort was divided into derivation and Omicron variant validation sets. We developed the LMIC-PRIEST score based on the coefficients from multivariable analysis in the derivation cohort and existing triage practices. We externally validated accuracy in the Omicron period and a UK cohort. RESULTS: We analysed 305,564 derivation, 140,520 Omicron and 12,610 UK validation cases. Over 100 events per predictor parameter were modelled. Multivariable analyses identified eight predictor variables retained across models. We used these findings and clinical judgement to develop a score based on South African Triage Early Warning Scores and also included age, sex, oxygen saturation, inspired oxygen, diabetes and heart disease. The LMIC-PRIEST score achieved C-statistics: 0.82 (95% CI: 0.82 to 0.83) development cohort; 0.79 (95% CI: 0.78 to 0.80) Omicron cohort; and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.79 to 0.80) UK cohort. Differences in prevalence of outcomes led to imperfect calibration in external validation. However, use of the score at thresholds of three or less would allow identification of very low-risk patients (NPV ≥0.99) who could be rapidly discharged using information collected at initial assessment. CONCLUSION: The LMIC-PRIEST score shows good discrimination and high sensitivity at lower thresholds and can be used to rapidly identify low-risk patients in LMIC ED settings.

Beyond acute concussion assessment to office management: a systematic review informing the development of a Sport Concussion Office Assessment Tool (SCOAT6) for adults and children.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the scientific literature regarding the assessment of sport-related concussion (SRC) in the subacute phase (3-30 days) and provide recommendations for developing a Sport Concussion Office Assessment Tool (SCOAT6). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science searched from 2001 to 2022. Data extracted included study design, population, definition of SRC diagnosis, outcome measure(s) and results. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: (1) Original research, cohort studies, case-control studies, diagnostic accuracy and case series with samples >10; (2) SRC; (3) screening/technology that assessed SRC in the subacute period and (4) low risk of bias (ROB). ROB was performed using adapted Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Quality of evidence was evaluated using the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy classification. RESULTS: Of 9913 studies screened, 127 met inclusion, assessing 12 overlapping domains. Results were summarised narratively. Studies of acceptable (81) or high (2) quality were used to inform the SCOAT6, finding sufficient evidence for including the assessment of autonomic function, dual gait, vestibular ocular motor screening (VOMS) and mental health screening. CONCLUSION: Current SRC tools have limited utility beyond 72 hours. Incorporation of a multimodal clinical assessment in the subacute phase of SRC may include symptom evaluation, orthostatic hypotension screen, verbal neurocognitive tests, cervical spine evaluation, neurological screen, Modified Balance Error Scoring System, single/dual task tandem gait, modified VOMS and provocative exercise tests. Screens for sleep disturbance, anxiety and depression are recommended. Studies to evaluate the psychometric properties, clinical feasibility in different environments and time frames are needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020154787.

Consensus statement on concussion in sport: the 6th International Conference on Concussion in Sport-Amsterdam, October 2022.

For over two decades, the Concussion in Sport Group has held meetings and developed five international statements on concussion in sport. This 6th statement summarises the processes and outcomes of the 6th International Conference on Concussion in Sport held in Amsterdam on 27-30 October 2022 and should be read in conjunction with the (1) methodology paper that outlines the consensus process in detail and (2) 10 systematic reviews that informed the conference outcomes. Over 3½ years, author groups conducted systematic reviews of predetermined priority topics relevant to concussion in sport. The format of the conference, expert panel meetings and workshops to revise or develop new clinical assessment tools, as described in the methodology paper, evolved from previous consensus meetings with several new components. Apart from this consensus statement, the conference process yielded revised tools including the Concussion Recognition Tool-6 (CRT6) and Sport Concussion Assessment Tool-6 (SCAT6, Child SCAT6), as well as a new tool, the Sport Concussion Office Assessment Tool-6 (SCOAT6, Child SCOAT6). This consensus process also integrated new features including a focus on the para athlete, the athlete's perspective, concussion-specific medical ethics and matters related to both athlete retirement and the potential long-term effects of SRC, including neurodegenerative disease. This statement summarises evidence-informed principles of concussion prevention, assessment and management, and emphasises those areas requiring more research.

Cognitive Impairment and Self-Reported Dementia in UK Retired Professional Soccer Players: A Cross Sectional Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies based on death certificates have found professional soccer players were more likely to die with neurodegenerative diseases, including dementia. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate whether retired professional male soccer players would perform worse on cognitive tests and be more likely to self-report dementia diagnosis than general population control men. METHODS: A cross-sectional comparative study was conducted between August 2020 and October 2021 in the United Kingdom (UK). Professional soccer players were recruited through different soccer clubs in England, and general population control men were recruited from the East Midlands in the UK. We obtained self-reported postal questionnaire data on dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases, comorbidities and risk factors from 468 soccer players and 619 general population controls. Of these, 326 soccer players and 395 general population controls underwent telephone assessment for cognitive function. RESULTS: Retired soccer players were approximately twice as likely to score below established dementia screening cut-off scores on the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (OR 2.06, 95%CI 1.11-3.83) and Verbal Fluency (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.18-2.68), but not the Test Your Memory, modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status, and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living. Analyses were adjusted for age, education, hearing loss, body mass index, stroke, circulatory problems in the legs and concussion. While retired soccer players were younger, had fewer cardiovascular diseases and other morbidities and reported healthier lifestyles, 2.8% of retired soccer players reported medically diagnosed dementia and other neurodegenerative disease compared to 0.9% of controls (OR = 3.46, 95% CI 1.25-9.63) after adjustment for age and possible confounders. CONCLUSIONS: UK male retired soccer players had a higher risk of performing below established cut-off scores of dementia screening tests and were more likely to self-report medically diagnosed dementia and neurodegenerative diseases, despite having better overall physical health and fewer dementia risk factors. Further study is needed to determine specific soccer-related risk factors.

External validation of triage tools for adults with suspected COVID-19 in a middle-income setting: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Tools proposed to triage ED acuity in suspected COVID-19 were derived and validated in higher income settings during early waves of the pandemic. We estimated the accuracy of seven risk-stratification tools recommended to predict severe illness in the Western Cape, South Africa. METHODS: An observational cohort study using routinely collected data from EDs across the Western Cape, from 27 August 2020 to 11 March 2022, was conducted to assess the performance of the PRIEST (Pandemic Respiratory Infection Emergency System Triage) tool, NEWS2 (National Early Warning Score, version 2), TEWS (Triage Early Warning Score), the WHO algorithm, CRB-65, Quick COVID-19 Severity Index and PMEWS (Pandemic Medical Early Warning Score) in suspected COVID-19. The primary outcome was intubation or non-invasive ventilation, death or intensive care unit admission at 30 days. RESULTS: Of the 446 084 patients, 15 397 (3.45%, 95% CI 34% to 35.1%) experienced the primary outcome. Clinical decision-making for inpatient admission achieved a sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.78), specificity of 0.88 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.88) and the negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.99 (95% CI 0.99 to 0.99). NEWS2, PMEWS and PRIEST scores achieved good estimated discrimination (C-statistic 0.79 to 0.82) and identified patients at risk of adverse outcomes at recommended cut-offs with moderate sensitivity (>0.8) and specificity ranging from 0.41 to 0.64. Use of the tools at recommended thresholds would have more than doubled admissions, with only a 0.01% reduction in false negative triage. CONCLUSION: No risk score outperformed existing clinical decision-making in determining the need for inpatient admission based on prediction of the primary outcome in this setting. Use of the PRIEST score at a threshold of one point higher than the previously recommended best approximated existing clinical accuracy.

LMIC-PRIEST: Derivation and validation of a clinical severity score for acutely ill adults with suspected COVID-19 in a middle-income setting.

Background: Uneven vaccination and less resilient health care systems mean hospitals in LMICs are at risk of being overwhelmed during periods of increased COVID-19 infection. Risk-scores proposed for rapid triage of need for admission from the emergency department (ED) have been developed in higher-income settings during initial waves of the pandemic. Methods: Routinely collected data for public hospitals in the Western Cape, South Africa from the 27 th August 2020 to 11 th March 2022 were used to derive a cohort of 446,084 ED patients with suspected COVID-19. The primary outcome was death or ICU admission at 30 days. The cohort was divided into derivation and Omicron variant validation sets. We developed the LMIC-PRIEST score based on the coefficients from multivariable analysis in the derivation cohort and existing triage practices. We externally validated accuracy in the Omicron period and a UK cohort. Results: We analysed 305,564, derivation 140,520 Omicron and 12,610 UK validation cases. Over 100 events per predictor parameter were modelled. Multivariable analyses identified eight predictor variables retained across models. We used these findings and clinical judgement to develop a score based on South African Triage Early Warning Scores and also included age, sex, oxygen saturation, inspired oxygen, diabetes and heart disease. The LMIC-PRIEST score achieved C-statistics: 0.82 (95% CI: 0.82 to 0.83) development cohort; 0.79 (95% CI: 0.78 to 0.80) Omicron cohort; and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.79 to 0.80) UK cohort. Differences in prevalence of outcomes led to imperfect calibration in external validation. However, use of the score at thresholds of three or less would allow identification of very low-risk patients (NPV ≥0.99) who could be rapidly discharged using information collected at initial assessment. Conclusion: The LMIC-PRIEST score shows good discrimination and high sensitivity at lower thresholds and can be used to rapidly identify low-risk patients in LMIC ED settings. What is already known on this subject: Uneven vaccination in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) coupled with less resilient health care provision mean that emergency health care systems in LMICs may still be at risk of being overwhelmed during periods of increased COVID-19 infection.Risk-stratification scores may help rapidly triage need for hospitalisation. However, those proposed for use in the ED for patients with suspected COVID-19 have been developed and validated in high-income settings. What this study adds: The LMIC-PRIEST score has been robustly developed using a large routine dataset from the Western Cape, South Africa and is directly applicable to existing triage practices in LMICs.External validation across both income settings and COVID-19 variants showed good discrimination and high sensitivity (at lower thresholds) to a composite outcome indicating need for inpatient admission from the ED. How this study might affect research practice or policy: Use of the LMIC-PRIEST score at thresholds of three or less would allow identification of very low-risk patients (negative predictive value ≥0.99) across all settings assessedDuring periods of increased demand, this could allow the rapid identification and discharge of patients from the ED using information collected at initial assessment.