A Symptom-Checker for Adult Patients Visiting an Interdisciplinary Emergency Care Center and the Safety of Patient Self-Triage: Real-Life Prospective Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Symptom-checkers have become important tools for self-triage, assisting patients to determine the urgency of medical care. To be safe and effective, these tools must be validated, particularly to avoid potentially hazardous undertriage without leading to inefficient overtriage. Only limited safety data from studies including small sample sizes have been available so far. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to prospectively investigate the safety of patients' self-triage in a large patient sample. We used SMASS (Swiss Medical Assessment System; in4medicine, Inc) pathfinder, a symptom-checker based on a computerized transparent neural network. METHODS: We recruited 2543 patients into this single-center, prospective clinical trial conducted at the cantonal hospital of Baden, Switzerland. Patients with an Emergency Severity Index of 1-2 were treated by the team of the emergency department, while those with an index of 3-5 were seen at the walk-in clinic by general physicians. We compared the triage recommendation obtained by the patients' self-triage with the assessment of clinical urgency made by 3 successive interdisciplinary panels of physicians (panels A, B, and C). Using the Clopper-Pearson CI, we assumed that to confirm the symptom-checkers' safety, the upper confidence bound for the probability of a potentially hazardous undertriage should lie below 1%. A potentially hazardous undertriage was defined as a triage in which either all (consensus criterion) or the majority (majority criterion) of the experts of the last panel (panel C) rated the triage of the symptom-checker to be "rather likely" or "likely" life-threatening or harmful. RESULTS: Of the 2543 patients, 1227 (48.25%) were female and 1316 (51.75%) male. None of the patients reached the prespecified consensus criterion for a potentially hazardous undertriage. This resulted in an upper 95% confidence bound of 0.1184%. Further, 4 cases met the majority criterion. This resulted in an upper 95% confidence bound for the probability of a potentially hazardous undertriage of 0.3616%. The 2-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson CI for the probability of overtriage (n=450 cases,17.69%) was 16.23% to 19.24%, which is considerably lower than the figures reported in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: The symptom-checker proved to be a safe triage tool, avoiding potentially hazardous undertriage in a real-life clinical setting of emergency consultations at a walk-in clinic or emergency department without causing undesirable overtriage. Our data suggest the symptom-checker may be safely used in clinical routine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04055298; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04055298.

Recommendation endpoints and safety of an online self-triage for depression symptoms.

INTRODUCTION: Online symptom checkers are a way to address patient concerns and potentially offload a burdened healthcare system. However, safety outcomes of self-triage are unknown, so we reviewed triage recommendations and outcomes of our institution's depression symptom checker. METHODS: We examined endpoint recommendations and follow-up encounters seven days afterward during 2 December 2021 to 13 December 2022. Patients with an emergency department visit or hospitalization within seven days of self-triaging had a manual review of the electronic health record to determine if the visit was related to depression, suicidal ideation, or suicide attempt. Charts were reviewed for deaths within seven days of self-triage. RESULTS: There were 287 unique encounters from 263 unique patients. In 86.1% (247/287), the endpoint was an instruction to call nurse triage; in 3.1% of encounters (9/287), instruction was to seek emergency care. Only 20.2% (58/287) followed the recommendations given. Of the 229 patients that did not follow the endpoint recommendations, 121 (52.8%) had some type of follow-up within seven days. Nearly 11% (31/287) were triaged to endpoints not requiring urgent contact and 9.1% (26/287) to an endpoint that would not need any healthcare team input. No patients died in the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients did not follow the recommendations for follow-up care although ultimately most patients did receive care within seven days. Self-triage appears to appropriately sort patients with depressed mood to emergency care. On-line self-triaging tools for depression have the potential to safely offload some work from clinic personnel.

'Better see a doctor?' Status quo of symptom checker apps in Germany: A cross-sectional survey with a mixed-methods design (CHECK.APP).

Background: Symptom checker apps (SCAs) offer symptom classification and low-threshold self-triage for laypeople. They are already in use despite their poor accuracy and concerns that they may negatively affect primary care. This study assesses the extent to which SCAs are used by medical laypeople in Germany and which software is most popular. We examined associations between satisfaction with the general practitioner (GP) and SCA use as well as the number of GP visits and SCA use. Furthermore, we assessed the reasons for intentional non-use. Methods: We conducted a survey comprising standardised and open-ended questions. Quantitative data were weighted, and open-ended responses were examined using thematic analysis. Results: This study included 850 participants. The SCA usage rate was 8%, and approximately 50% of SCA non-users were uninterested in trying SCAs. The most commonly used SCAs were NetDoktor and Ada. Surprisingly, SCAs were most frequently used in the age group of 51-55 years. No significant associations were found between SCA usage and satisfaction with the GP or the number of GP visits and SCA usage. Thematic analysis revealed skepticism regarding the results and recommendations of SCAs and discrepancies between users' requirements and the features of apps. Conclusion: SCAs are still widely unknown in the German population and have been sparsely used so far. Many participants were not interested in trying SCAs, and we found no positive or negative associations of SCAs and primary care.

"That's just Future Medicine" - a qualitative study on users' experiences of symptom checker apps.

BACKGROUND: Symptom checker apps (SCAs) are mobile or online applications for lay people that usually have two main functions: symptom analysis and recommendations. SCAs ask users questions about their symptoms via a chatbot, give a list with possible causes, and provide a recommendation, such as seeing a physician. However, it is unclear whether the actual performance of a SCA corresponds to the users' experiences. This qualitative study investigates the subjective perspectives of SCA users to close the empirical gap identified in the literature and answers the following main research question: How do individuals (healthy users and patients) experience the usage of SCA, including their attitudes, expectations, motivations, and concerns regarding their SCA use? METHODS: A qualitative interview study was chosen to clarify the relatively unknown experience of SCA use. Semi-structured qualitative interviews with SCA users were carried out by two researchers in tandem via video call. Qualitative content analysis was selected as methodology for the data analysis. RESULTS: Fifteen interviews with SCA users were conducted and seven main categories identified: (1) Attitudes towards findings and recommendations, (2) Communication, (3) Contact with physicians, (4) Expectations (prior to use), (5) Motivations, (6) Risks, and (7) SCA-use for others. CONCLUSIONS: The aspects identified in the analysis emphasise the specific perspective of SCA users and, at the same time, the immense scope of different experiences. Moreover, the study reveals ethical issues, such as relational aspects, that are often overlooked in debates on mHealth. Both empirical and ethical research is more needed, as the awareness of the subjective experience of those affected is an essential component in the responsible development and implementation of health apps such as SCA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS): DRKS00022465. 07/08/2020.

Hospitalization Risk Associated With Emergency Department Reasons for Visit and Patient Age: A Retrospective Evaluation of National Emergency Department Survey Data to Help Identify Potentially Avoidable Emergency Department Visits.

Background: Patients often present to emergency departments (EDs) with concerns that do not require emergency care. Self-triage and other interventions may help some patients decide whether they should be seen in the ED. Symptoms associated with low risk of hospitalization can be identified in national ED data and can inform the design of interventions to reduce avoidable ED visits. Methods: We used the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) data from the United States National Health Care Statistics (NHCS) division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The ED datasets from 2011 through 2020 were combined. Primary reasons for ED visit and the binary field for hospital admission from the ED were used to estimate the proportion of ED patients admitted to the hospital for each reason for visit and age category. Results: There were 221,027 surveyed ED visits during the 10-year data collection with 736 different primary reasons for visit and 23,228 hospitalizations. There were 145 million estimated hospitalizations from 1.37 billion estimated ED visits (10.6%). Inclusion criteria for this study were reasons for visit which had at least 30 ED visits in the sample; there were 396 separate reasons for visit which met this criteria. Of these 396 reasons for visit, 97 had admission percentages less than 2% and another 52 had hospital admissions estimated between 2% and 4%. However, there was a significant increase in hospitalizations within many of the ED reasons for visit in older adults. Conclusion: Reasons for visit from national ED data can be ranked by hospitalization risk. Low-risk symptoms may help healthcare institutions identify potentially avoidable ED visits. Healthcare systems can use this information to help manage potentially avoidable ED visits with interventions designed to apply to their patient population and healthcare access.

How suitable are clinical vignettes for the evaluation of symptom checker apps? A test theoretical perspective.

Objective: To evaluate the ability of case vignettes to assess the performance of symptom checker applications and to suggest refinements to the methodology used in case vignette-based audit studies. Methods: We re-analyzed the publicly available data of two prominent case vignette-based symptom checker audit studies by calculating common metrics of test theory. Furthermore, we developed a new metric, the Capability Comparison Score (CCS), which compares symptom checker capability while controlling for the difficulty of the set of cases each symptom checker evaluated. We then scrutinized whether applying test theory and the CCS altered the performance ranking of the investigated symptom checkers. Results: In both studies, most symptom checkers changed their rank order when adjusting the triage capability for item difficulty (ID) with the CCS. The previously reported triage accuracies commonly overestimated the capability of symptom checkers because they did not account for the fact that symptom checkers tend to selectively appraise easier cases (i.e., with high ID values). Also, many case vignettes in both studies showed insufficient (very low and even negative) values of item-total correlation (ITC), suggesting that individual items or the composition of item sets are of low quality. Conclusions: A test-theoretic perspective helps identify previously undetected threats to the validity of case vignette-based symptom checker assessments and provides guidance and specific metrics to improve the quality of case vignettes, in particular by controlling for the difficulty of the vignettes an app was (not) able to evaluate correctly. Such measures might prove more meaningful than accuracy alone for the competitive assessment of symptom checkers. Our approach helps elaborate and standardize the methodology used for appraising symptom checker capability, which, ultimately, may yield more reliable results.

Online Self-Triage of Ear or Hearing Concerns in a Patient Portal: Comparison of Subsequent Diagnoses and Hospitalizations to National Emergency Department and National Ambulatory Ear or Hearing Visits.

Background: Although online self-triage is easily accessible, little is known about the patients who use self-triage or their subsequent diagnoses. We compared ear/hearing self-triage subsequent diagnoses to ear/hearing visit diagnoses in emergency departments (ED) and ambulatory clinics across the United States. Methods: We compared International Classification of Diseases version 10 (ICD10) coded diagnoses following online self-triage for ear/hearing concerns with those from national ED and ambulatory clinic samples. We used data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) and National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) for comparison. Using matched ear/hearing diagnostic categories for those aged 1 and over, we compared self-triage diagnosis frequencies with national ED and ambulatory diagnosis frequencies. Results: Following ear/hearing self-triage, there were 1092 subsequent office visits with a primary diagnosis code. For five frequently diagnosed ear/hearing conditions (i.e., suppurative and nonsuppurative otitis media [OM], otalgia, otitis externa, and cerumen impaction), there was a strong correlation between diagnosis counts made following self-triage and estimated counts of national ED visit diagnoses (r = 0.94; CI 95% [0.37 to 0.99]; p = .016, adjusted r2 = 0.85). Seven diagnoses were available to compare with the national ambulatory sample; correlation was r = 0.79; CI 95% [0.08 to 0.97]; p = .037, adjusted r2 = 0.54. For ages 1 and over, estimated hospital admissions from the national ED visits for ear/hearing were 0.76%, CI 95% [0.28-2.1%]; estimated total national ear/hearing ED visits were 7.5 million (for 4 years, 2016 through 2019). Conclusion: The strong correlation of ear-related self-triage diagnoses with national ED diagnoses and the low hospitalization risk for these diagnoses suggests that there is an opportunity for self-triage of ear/hearing concerns to decrease ED visits for these symptoms.

A Digital-First Health Care Approach to Managing Pandemics: Scoping Review of Pandemic Self-triage Tools.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many patient-facing digital self-triage tools were designed and deployed to alleviate the demand for pandemic virus triage in hospitals and physicians' offices by providing a way for people to self-assess their health status and get advice on whether to seek care. These tools, provided via websites, apps, or patient portals, allow people to answer questions, for example, about symptoms and contact history, and receive guidance on appropriate care, which might be self-care. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to explore the state of literature on digital self-triage tools that direct or advise care for adults during a pandemic and to explore what has been learned about the intended purpose, use, and quality of guidance; tool usability; impact on providers; and ability to forecast health outcomes or care demand. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in July 2021 using MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases. A total of 1311 titles and abstracts were screened by 2 researchers using Covidence, and of these, 83 (6.76%) articles were reviewed via full-text screening. In total, 22 articles met the inclusion criteria; they allowed adults to self-assess for pandemic virus, and the adults were directed to care. Using Microsoft Excel, we extracted and charted the following data: authors, publication year and country, country the tool was used in, whether the tool was integrated into a health care system, number of users, research question and purpose, direction of care provided, and key findings. RESULTS: All but 2 studies reported on tools developed since early 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Studies reported on tools that were developed in 17 countries. The direction of care advice included directing to an emergency room, seeking urgent care, contacting or seeing a physician, being tested, or staying at home and self-isolating. Only 2 studies evaluated tool usability. No study demonstrated that the tools reduce demand on the health care system, although at least one study suggested that data can predict demand for care and that data allow monitoring public health. CONCLUSIONS: Although self-triage tools developed and used around the world have similarities in directing to care (emergency room, physician, and self-care), they differ in important ways. Some collect data to predict health care demand. Some are intended for use when concerned about health status; others are intended to be used repeatedly by users to monitor public health. The quality of triage may vary. The high use of such tools during the COVID-19 pandemic suggests that research is needed to assess and ensure the quality of advice given by self-triage tools and to assess intended or unintended consequences on public health and health care systems.

Self-Triage Use, Subsequent Healthcare Utilization, and Diagnoses: A Retrospective Study of Process and Clinical Outcomes Following Self-Triage and Self-Scheduling for Ear or Hearing Symptoms.

Background: Self-triage is becoming more widespread, but little is known about the people who are using online self-triage tools and their outcomes. For self-triage researchers, there are significant barriers to capturing subsequent healthcare outcomes. Our integrated healthcare system was able to capture subsequent healthcare utilization of individuals who used self-triage integrated with self-scheduling of provider visits. Methods: We retrospectively examined healthcare utilization and diagnoses after patients had used self-triage and self-scheduling for ear or hearing symptoms. Outcomes and counts of office visits, telemedicine interactions, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations were captured. Diagnosis codes associated with subsequent provider visits were dichotomously categorized as being associated with ear or hearing concerns or not. Nonvisit care encounters of patient-initiated messages, nurse triage calls, and clinical communications were also captured. Results: For 2168 self-triage uses, we were able to capture subsequent healthcare encounters within 7 days of the self-triage for 80.5% (1745/2168). In subsequent 1092 office visits with diagnoses, 83.1% (891/1092) of the uses were associated with relevant ear, nose and throat diagnoses. Only 0.24% (4/1662) of patients with captured outcomes were associated with a hospitalization within 7 days. Self-triage resulted in a self-scheduled office visit in 7.2% (126/1745). Office visits resulting from a self-scheduled visit had significantly fewer combined non-visit care encounters per office visit (fewer combined nurse triage calls, patient messages, and clinical communication messages) than office visits that were not self-scheduled (-0.51; 95% CI, -0.72 to -0.29; P < .0001). Conclusion: In an appropriate healthcare setting, self-triage outcomes can be captured in a high percentage of uses to examine for safety, patient adherence to recommendations, and efficiency of self-triage. With the ear or hearing self-triage, most uses had subsequent visit diagnoses relevant to ear or hearing, so most patients appeared to be selecting the appropriate self-triage pathway for their symptoms.

The Triage Capability of Laypersons: Retrospective Exploratory Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although medical decision-making may be thought of as a task involving health professionals, many decisions, including critical health-related decisions are made by laypersons alone. Specifically, as the first step to most care episodes, it is the patient who determines whether and where to seek health care (triage). Overcautious self-assessments (ie, overtriaging) may lead to overutilization of health care facilities and overcrowded emergency departments, whereas imprudent decisions (ie, undertriaging) constitute a risk to the patient's health. Recently, patient-facing decision support systems, commonly known as symptom checkers, have been developed to assist laypersons in these decisions. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to identify factors influencing laypersons' ability to self-triage and their risk averseness in self-triage decisions. METHODS: We analyzed publicly available data on 91 laypersons appraising 45 short fictitious patient descriptions (case vignettes; N=4095 appraisals). Using signal detection theory and descriptive and inferential statistics, we explored whether the type of medical decision laypersons face, their confidence in their decision, and sociodemographic factors influence their triage accuracy and the type of errors they make. We distinguished between 2 decisions: whether emergency care was required (decision 1) and whether self-care was sufficient (decision 2). RESULTS: The accuracy of detecting emergencies (decision 1) was higher (mean 82.2%, SD 5.9%) than that of deciding whether any type of medical care is required (decision 2, mean 75.9%, SD 5.25%; t>90=8.4; P<.001; Cohen d=0.9). Sensitivity for decision 1 was lower (mean 67.5%, SD 16.4%) than its specificity (mean 89.6%, SD 8.6%) whereas sensitivity for decision 2 was higher (mean 90.5%, SD 8.3%) than its specificity (mean 46.7%, SD 15.95%). Female participants were more risk averse and overtriaged more often than male participants, but age and level of education showed no association with participants' risk averseness. Participants' triage accuracy was higher when they were certain about their appraisal (2114/3381, 62.5%) than when being uncertain (378/714, 52.9%). However, most errors occurred when participants were certain of their decision (1267/1603, 79%). Participants were more commonly certain of their overtriage errors (mean 80.9%, SD 23.8%) than their undertriage errors (mean 72.5%, SD 30.9%; t>89=3.7; P<.001; d=0.39). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that laypersons are overcautious in deciding whether they require medical care at all, but they miss identifying a considerable portion of emergencies. Our results further indicate that women are more risk averse than men in both types of decisions. Layperson participants made most triage errors when they were certain of their own appraisal. Thus, they might not follow or even seek advice (eg, from symptom checkers) in most instances where advice would be useful.

Patients' self-triage for unscheduled urgent care: a preliminary study on the accuracy and factors affecting the performance of a Belgian self-triage platform.

BACKGROUND: Management of unscheduled urgent care is a complex concern for many healthcare providers. Facing the challenge of appropriately dispatching unscheduled care, primary and emergency physicians have collaboratively implemented innovative strategies such as telephone triage. Currently, new original solutions tend to emerge with the development of new technologies. We created an interactive patient self-triage platform, ODISSEE, and aimed to explore its accuracy and potential factors affecting its performance using clinical case scenarios. METHODS: The ODISSEE platform was developed based on previously validated triage protocols for out-of-hours primary care. ODISSEE is composed of 18 icons leading to algorithmic questions that finally provide an advised orientation (emergency or primary care services). To investigate ODISSEE performance, we used 100 clinical case scenarios, each associated with a preestablished orientation determined by a group of experts. Fifteen volunteers were asked to self-triage with 50 randomly selected scenarios using ODISSEE on a digital tablet. Their triage results were compared with the experts' references. RESULTS: The 15 participants performed a total of 750 self-triages, which matched the experts references regarding the level of care in 85.6% of the cases. The orientation was incorrect in 14.4%, with an undertriage rate of 1.9% and an overtriage rate of 12.5%. The tool's specificity and sensitivity to advise participants on the appropriate level of care were 69% (95% CI: 64-74) and 97% (95% CI: 95-98) respectively. When combined with advice on the level of urgency, the tool only found the correct orientation in 68.4% with 9.2% of undertriages and 22.4% of overtriages. Some participant characteristics and the types of medical conditions demonstrated a significant association with the tool performance. CONCLUSION: Self-triage apps, such as the ODISSEE platform, could represent an innovative method to allow patients to self-triage to the most appropriate level of care. This study based on clinical vignettes highlights some positive arguments regarding ODISSEE safety, but further research is needed to assess the generalizability of such tools to the population without equity issues.

Patient Experience and Feedback After Using an Electronic Health Record-Integrated COVID-19 Symptom Checker: Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Symptom checkers have been widely used during the COVID-19 pandemic to alleviate strain on health systems and offer patients a 24-7 self-service triage option. Although studies suggest that users may positively perceive web-based symptom checkers, no studies have quantified user feedback after use of an electronic health record-integrated COVID-19 symptom checker with self-scheduling functionality. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we aimed to understand user experience, user satisfaction, and user-reported alternatives to the use of a COVID-19 symptom checker with self-triage and self-scheduling functionality. METHODS: We launched a patient-portal-based self-triage and self-scheduling tool in March 2020 for patients with COVID-19 symptoms, exposures, or questions. We made an optional, anonymous Qualtrics survey available to patients immediately after they completed the symptom checker. RESULTS: Between December 16, 2021, and March 28, 2022, there were 395 unique responses to the survey. Overall, the respondents reported high satisfaction across all demographics, with a median rating of 8 out of 10 and 288/395 (47.6%) of the respondents giving a rating of 9 or 10 out of 10. User satisfaction scores were not associated with any demographic factors. The most common user-reported alternatives had the web-based tool not been available were calling the COVID-19 telephone hotline and sending a patient-portal message to their physician for advice. The ability to schedule a test online was the most important symptom checker feature for the respondents. The most common categories of user feedback were regarding other COVID-19 services (eg, telephone hotline), policies, or procedures, and requesting additional features or functionality. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that COVID-19 symptom checkers with self-triage and self-scheduling functionality may have high overall user satisfaction, regardless of user demographics. By allowing users to self-triage and self-schedule tests and visits, tools such as this may prevent unnecessary calls and messages to clinicians. Individual feedback suggested that the user experience for this type of tool is highly dependent on the organization's operational workflows for COVID-19 testing and care. This study provides insight for the implementation and improvement of COVID-19 symptom checkers to ensure high user satisfaction.

Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Symptom Checker Apps in Primary Health Care (CHECK.APP): Protocol for an Interdisciplinary Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Symptom checker apps (SCAs) are accessible tools that provide early symptom assessment for users. The ethical, legal, and social implications of SCAs and their impact on the patient-physician relationship, the health care providers, and the health care system have sparsely been examined. This study protocol describes an approach to investigate the possible impacts and implications of SCAs on different levels of health care provision. It considers the perspectives of the users, nonusers, general practitioners (GPs), and health care experts. OBJECTIVE: We aim to assess a comprehensive overview of the use of SCAs and address problematic issues, if any. The primary outcomes of this study are empirically informed multi-perspective recommendations for different stakeholders on the ethical, legal, and social implications of SCAs. METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative methods will be used in several overlapping and interconnected study phases. In study phase 1, a comprehensive literature review will be conducted to assess the ethical, legal, social, and systemic impacts of SCAs. Study phase 2 comprises a survey that will be analyzed with a logistic regression. It aims to assess the user degree of SCAs in Germany as well as the predictors for SCA usage. Study phase 3 will investigate self-observational diaries and user interviews, which will be analyzed as integrated cases to assess user perspectives, usage pattern, and arising problems. Study phase 4 will comprise GP interviews to assess their experiences, perspectives, self-image, and concepts and will be analyzed with the basic procedure by Kruse. Moreover, interviews with health care experts will be conducted in study phase 3 and will be analyzed by using the reflexive thematical analysis approach of Braun and Clark. RESULTS: Study phase 1 will be completed in November 2021. We expect the results of study phase 2 in December 2021 and February 2022. In study phase 3, interviews are currently being conducted. The final study endpoint will be in February 2023. CONCLUSIONS: The possible ethical, legal, social, and systemic impacts of a widespread use of SCAs that affect stakeholders and stakeholder groups on different levels of health care will be identified. The proposed methodological approach provides a multifaceted and diverse empirical basis for a broad discussion on these implications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) DRKS00022465; https://tinyurl.com/yx53er67. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/34026.

A Mobile App for Self-Triage for Pediatric Emergency Patients in Japan: 4 Year Descriptive Epidemiological Study.

BACKGROUND: When children suffer sudden illness or injury, many parents wonder whether they should go to the hospital immediately or call an ambulance. In 2015, we developed a mobile app that allows parents or guardians to determine the urgency of their child's condition or call an ambulance and that indicates available hospitals and clinics when their child is suddenly sick or injured by simple selection of the child's chief complaints and symptoms. However, the effectiveness of medical apps used by the general public has not been well evaluated. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to clarify the use profile of this mobile app based on data usage in the app. METHODS: This study was a descriptive epidemiological study with a 4-year study period running from January 2016 to December 2019. We included cases in which the app was used either by the children themselves or by their parents and other guardians. Cases in which the app was downloaded but never actually used were excluded from this study. Continuous variables are presented as median and IQR, and categorical variables are presented as actual number and percentages. RESULTS: The app was used during the study period for 59,375 children whose median age was 1 year (IQR 0-3 years). The app was used for 33,874 (57.05%) infants, 16,228 (27.33%) toddlers, 8102 (13.65%) elementary school students, and 1117 (1.88%) junior high school students, with 54 (0.09%) having an unknown status. Furthermore, 31,519 (53.08%) were male and 27,329 (46.03%) were female, with sex being unknown for 527 (0.89%) children. "Sickness" was chosen for 49,101 (78.51%) patients, and "injury, poisoning, foreign, substances and others" was chosen for 13,441 (21.49%). For "sickness," "fever" was the most commonly selected option (22,773, 36.41%), followed by "cough" (4054, 6.48%), and "nausea/vomiting" (3528, 5.64%), whereas for "injury, poisoning, foreign substances and others," "head and neck injury" was the most commonly selected option (3887, 6.22%), followed by "face and extremities injury" (1493, 2.39%) and "injury and foreign substances in eyes" (1255, 2.01%). CONCLUSIONS: This study clarified the profile of use of a self-triage app for pediatric emergency patients in Japan.

Young Adults' Perspectives on the Use of Symptom Checkers for Self-Triage and Self-Diagnosis: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Young adults often browse the internet for self-triage and diagnosis. More sophisticated digital platforms such as symptom checkers have recently become pervasive; however, little is known about their use. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to understand young adults' (18-34 years old) perspectives on the use of the Google search engine versus a symptom checker, as well as to identify the barriers and enablers for using a symptom checker for self-triage and self-diagnosis. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive case study research design was used. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 24 young adults enrolled in a university in Ontario, Canada. All participants were given a clinical vignette and were asked to use a symptom checker (WebMD Symptom Checker or Babylon Health) while thinking out loud, and were asked questions regarding their experience. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and imported into the NVivo software program. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted independently by two researchers. RESULTS: Using the Google search engine was perceived to be faster and more customizable (ie, ability to enter symptoms freely in the search engine) than a symptom checker; however, a symptom checker was perceived to be useful for a more personalized assessment. After having used a symptom checker, most of the participants believed that the platform needed improvement in the areas of accuracy, security and privacy, and medical jargon used. Given these limitations, most participants believed that symptom checkers could be more useful for self-triage than for self-diagnosis. Interestingly, more than half of the participants were not aware of symptom checkers prior to this study and most believed that this lack of awareness about the existence of symptom checkers hindered their use. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness related to the existence of symptom checkers and their integration into the health care system are required to maximize benefits related to these platforms. Addressing the barriers identified in this study is likely to increase the acceptance and use of symptom checkers by young adults.

A smartphone-based online tool for prehospital self-triage of COVID-19.

The COVID-19 epidemic has swept across China and spread to other countries. The rapid spreading of COVID-19 and panic combined with the lack of a hierarchical medical system in China have resulted in a huge number of hospital visiting which are overwhelming local medical system and increasing the incidence of cross infection. To meliorate this situation, we adopted the management concept of the system of Tiered Diagnosis and Treatment and developed an online tool for self-triage based on the mostly used multi-purpose smartphone app Wechat in China. This online tool helps people perform self-triage so that they can decide whether to quarantine at home or visit hospital. This tool further provides instructions for home quarantine and help patients make an appointment online if hospital visiting suggested. This smartphone application can reduce the burden on hospitals without losing the truly COVID-19 patients and protect people from the danger of cross infection.

Implementation of a Self-Triage Web Application for Suspected COVID-19 and Its Impact on Emergency Call Centers: Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: We developed a self-triage web application for COVID-19 symptoms, which was launched in France in March 2020, when French health authorities recommended all patients with suspected COVID-19 call an emergency phone number. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine if a self-triage tool could reduce the burden on emergency call centers and help predict increasing burden on hospitals. METHODS: Users were asked questions about their underlying conditions, sociodemographic status, postal code, and main COVID-19 symptoms. Participants were advised to call an emergency call center if they reported dyspnea or complete loss of appetite for over 24 hours. Data on COVID-19-related calls were collected from 6 emergency call centers and data on COVID-19 hospitalizations were collected from Santé Publique France and the French Ministry of Health. We examined the change in the number of emergency calls before and after the launch of the web application. RESULTS: From March 17 to April 2, 2020, 735,419 questionnaires were registered in the study area. Of these, 121,370 (16.5%) led to a recommendation to call an emergency center. The peak number of overall questionnaires and of questionnaires leading to a recommendation to call an emergency center were observed on March 22, 2020. In the 17 days preceding the launch of the web application, emergency call centers in the study area registered 66,925 COVID-19-related calls and local hospitals admitted 639 patients for COVID-19; the ratio of emergency calls to hospitalizations for COVID-19 was 104.7 to 1. In the 17 days following the launch of the web application, there were 82,347 emergency calls and 6009 new hospitalizations for COVID-19, a ratio of 13.7 calls to 1 hospitalization (chi-square test: P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The self-triage web application launch was followed by a nearly 10-fold increase in COVID-19-related hospitalizations with only a 23% increase in emergency calls. The peak of questionnaire completions preceded the peak of COVID-19-related hospitalizations by 5 days. Although the design of this study does not allow us to conclude that the self-triage tool alone contributed to the alleviation of calls to the emergency call centers, it does suggest that it played a role, and may be used for predicting increasing burden on hospitals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04331171; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04331171.

Rapid design and implementation of an integrated patient self-triage and self-scheduling tool for COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To rapidly deploy a digital patient-facing self-triage and self-scheduling tool in a large academic health system to address the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We created a patient portal-based COVID-19 self-triage and self-scheduling tool and made it available to all primary care patients at the University of California, San Francisco Health, a large academic health system. Asymptomatic patients were asked about exposure history and were then provided relevant information. Symptomatic patients were triaged into 1 of 4 categories-emergent, urgent, nonurgent, or self-care-and then connected with the appropriate level of care via direct scheduling or telephone hotline. RESULTS: This self-triage and self-scheduling tool was designed and implemented in under 2 weeks. During the first 16 days of use, it was completed 1129 times by 950 unique patients. Of completed sessions, 315 (28%) were by asymptomatic patients, and 814 (72%) were by symptomatic patients. Symptomatic patient triage dispositions were as follows: 193 emergent (24%), 193 urgent (24%), 99 nonurgent (12%), 329 self-care (40%). Sensitivity for detecting emergency-level care was 87.5% (95% CI 61.7-98.5%). DISCUSSION: This self-triage and self-scheduling tool has been widely used by patients and is being rapidly expanded to other populations and health systems. The tool has recommended emergency-level care with high sensitivity, and decreased triage time for patients with less severe illness. The data suggests it also prevents unnecessary triage messages, phone calls, and in-person visits. CONCLUSION: Patient self-triage tools integrated into electronic health record systems have the potential to greatly improve triage efficiency and prevent unnecessary visits during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Mass Casualty Incident in Turin, 2017: A Case Study of Disaster Responders' Mental Health in an Italian Level I Hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the psychological impact of a mass casualty incident (MCI) in a subset of personnel in a level I hospital. METHODS: Emergency department staff responded to an MCI in June 2017 in Turin, Italy by an unexpected sudden surge of casualties following a stampede (mass escape). Participants completed the Psychological Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment Responder Self-Triage System (PsySTART-R), which classified the potential risk of psychological distress in "no risk" versus "at risk" categorization and identified a range of impacts aggregated for the population of medical responders. Participants were administered a questionnaire on the perceived effectiveness of management of the MCI. Two months later, the participants were evaluated using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6), and the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL-5). RESULTS: The majority of the responders were classified as "no risk" by the PsySTART-R; no significant differences on HADS, K6, and PCL-5 were found in the participants grouped by the PsySTART-R categories. The personnel acquainted to work in emergency contexts (emergency department and intensive care unit) scored significantly lower in the HADS than the personnel usually working in other wards. The number of positive PsySTART-R criteria correlated with the HADS depression score. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the adverse psychological implications of the MCI were well handled and averted by the responders. A possible explanation could be related to factors such as the clinical condition of the victims (most were not severely injured, no fatalities), the small number of casualties (87) brought to the hospital, the event not being considered life-threatening, and its brief duration, among others. Responders had mainly to cope with a sudden surge in casualties and with organizational issues.

Significant discrepancies exist between clinician assessment and patient self-assessment of functional capacity by validated scoring tools during preoperative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative assessment of functional capacity is necessary to direct decisions regarding cardiac evaluation and may help identify patients at high risk for perioperative complications. Patient self-triage regarding functional capacity could be useful for discerning which patients benefit from a clinician evaluation at a Preoperative Evaluation Center prior to the day of surgery. We evaluated the feasibility of preoperative, patient self-triage regarding functional capacity. METHODS: Patients were recruited immediately prior to their preoperative evaluation. Study participants completed electronic versions of the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement System (PROMIS)-Short Form 12a-Physical Function. DASI and PROMIS questionnaire responses were scored and evaluated for correlation with clinician assessments of functional capacity. Correlation was analyzed around the dichotomous outcome of <4 metabolic equivalents of task (METs) or ≥4 METs. Patients also evaluated the usability of the questionnaires. RESULTS: After IRB approval, 204 patients were enrolled and completed both DASI and PROMIS questionnaires. Clinicians assessed functional capacity at <4 METs for 109 patients (53.4 %) compared to 18 (8.8 %) patient self-assessments <4 METs as estimated by DASI. These results represent a significant discrepancy between assessments (Fisher's exact, two-tailed P value <0.0001). The standard T-score of PROMIS estimates of functional capacity correlated with DASI estimates (R (2) 0.76). The mean and standard deviation for PROMIS T-scores were 43.3 and 9.86, respectively (mean 50.0; SD 10.0 for the general population). Of the 203 patients who completed the entire study survey, 192 (94.6 %) stated that they did not require assistance from another person, and 187 (94 %) responded either "agree" or "strongly agree" to the DASI questionnaire being "easy to understand" and "easy to complete;" 186 (93 %) and 188 (94 %), respectively, responded similarly to the PROMIS questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: While both electronic questionnaires were easy to understand and complete for most study participants, there was a significant discrepancy between clinician assessments and patient self-assessments of functional capacity. Further study is needed to determine if either patient self-triage by means of activity questionnaires or clinician evaluation is valid and reliable in the preoperative setting.