Optimal timing for the Modified Early Warning Score for prediction of short-term critical illness in the acute care chain: a prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: The Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) is an effective tool to identify patients in the acute care chain who are likely to deteriorate. Although it is increasingly being implemented in the ED, the optimal moment to use the MEWS is unknown. This study aimed to determine at what moment in the acute care chain MEWS has the highest accuracy in predicting critical illness. METHODS: Adult patients brought by ambulance to the ED at both locations of the Amsterdam UMC, a level 1 trauma centre, were prospectively included between 11 March and 28 October 2021. MEWS was calculated using vital parameters measured prehospital, at ED presentation, 1 hour and 3 hours thereafter, imputing for missing temperature and/or consciousness, as these values were expected not to deviate. Critical illness was defined as requiring intensive care unit admission, myocardial infarction or death within 72 hours after ED presentation. Accuracy in predicting critical illness was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC). RESULTS: Of the 790 included patients, critical illness occurred in 90 (11.4%). MEWS based on vital parameters at ED presentation had the highest performance in predicting critical illness with an AUROC of 0.73 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.79) but did not significantly differ compared with other moments. Patients with an increasing MEWS over time are significantly more likely to become critical ill compared with patients with an improving MEWS. CONCLUSION: The performance of MEWS is moderate in predicting critical illness using vital parameters measured surrounding ED admission. However, an increase of MEWS during ED admission is correlated with the development of critical illness. Therefore, early recognition of deteriorating patients at the ED may be achieved by frequent MEWS calculation. Further studies should investigate the effect of continuous monitoring of these patients at the ED.

Improving emergency department flow by introducing a simple time out moment (The TRAFFIC LIGHT study).

BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE: Long waiting times in the emergency department (ED) is an increasing problem in the recent years and is expected to become an even bigger problem in the future Objective: We aimed to test the hypothesis whether increasing awareness of the time lapse with the treating physician, 2 hours after patient arrival, can reduce long patient turnaround time (TAT). METHOD: In this prospective single-center cohort study we compared and analyzed patient TAT in the ED before and after implementation of a so called 'traffic light' moment 2 hours after patient arrival. At this 'traffic light' moment a team member contacted the treating physician to increased awareness over the time lapse. Difference in percentage of patients who stayed more than 4 hours in the ED before and after intervention was the primary outcome Results: Between October 2nd 2021 and January 2nd,2022 1494 patients were included for primary outcome analysis. A total of 419 patients (n=740, 56.6%) had a TAT of less than 4 hour in the ED before intervention, compared to 497 (n=754, 65.9%) after intervention (p <0.001). Median time spent in de ED before intervention was 3:40 (IQR 2:24 - 5:04) compared to 3:15 (IQR 2:03 - 4:38) after intervention (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: This simple and low-cost intervention reduces the ED length of stay significantly. Although multiple interventions will be required to ensure less patients spending more than 4-hours in the ED, a 'traffic light' moment can be a simple and an effective tool.

Leaving the hospital on time: hospital bed utilization and reasons for discharge delay in the Netherlands.

Inappropriate bed occupancy due to delayed hospital discharge affects both physical and psychological well-being in patients and can disrupt patient flow. The Dutch healthcare system is facing ongoing pressure, especially during the current coronavirus disease pandemic, intensifying the need for optimal use of hospital beds. The aim of this study was to quantify inappropriate patient stays and describe the underlying reasons for the delays in discharge. The Day of Care Survey (DoCS) is a validated tool used to gain information about appropriate and inappropriate bed occupancy in hospitals. Between February 2019 and January 2021, the DoCS was performed five times in three different hospitals within the region of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. All inpatients were screened, using standardized criteria, for their need for in-hospital care at the time of survey and reasons for discharge delay. A total of 782 inpatients were surveyed. Of these patients, 94 (12%) were planned for definite discharge that day. Of all other patients, 145 (21%, ranging from 14% to 35%) were without the need for acute in-hospital care. In 74% (107/145) of patients, the reason for discharge delay was due to issues outside the hospital; most frequently due to a shortage of available places in care homes (26%, 37/145). The most frequent reason for discharge delay inside the hospital was patients awaiting a decision or review by the treating physician (14%, 20/145). Patients who did not meet the criteria for hospital stay were, in general, older [median 75, interquartile range (IQR) 65-84 years, and 67, IQR 55-75 years, respectively, P < .001] and had spent more days in hospital (7, IQR 5-14 days, and 3, IQR 1-8 days respectively, P < .001). Approximately one in five admitted patients occupying hospital beds did not meet the criteria for acute in-hospital stay or care at the time of the survey. Most delays were related to issues outside the immediate control of the hospital. Improvement programmes working with stakeholders focusing on the transfer from hospital to outside areas of care need to be further developed and may offer potential for the greatest gain. The DoCS can be a tool to periodically monitor changes and improvements in patient flow.

Recreational Drug Use During the Amsterdam Dance Event: Impact on Emergency Services.

Background: Recreational drug use is common at large-scale dance events such as the Amsterdam Dance Event (ADE) and severe drug-related complications and deaths occur. Increasing concentrations of cocaine, amphetamine and MDMA have been observed in samples from dance events. Therefore, large dance events are expected to cause an increasing amount of recreational drug related complaints (RDRC) and an increased demand on emergency medical services. Aim: To evaluate the impact of recreational drug related complaints (RDRC) during ADE 2016, compared to regular weeks, and to evaluate the requirement for additional medical personnel. Methods: For this prospective, observational cohort study, patients >12 years old presenting with RDRC at first aid stations (FAS), ambulance service (AA) and ED during ADE, between October 19th and October 24th 2016 were included. From 2 EDs and AA, the RDRC 2 weeks before and after ADE were also collected. Results: An estimated 375.000 people attended ADE. The number of patients with RDRC was 459 at the FAS, 113 at AA and 81 at the ED, and increased significantly during ADE with 225% at AA and with 236% at OLVG ED. Eight patients were admitted. A higher percentage of poly-drug use among ED patients (58%) was found, compared to FAS patients (25%). Also, the proportion of tourists in ED's (51%) was higher compared to FAS (30%). Conclusions: During ADE 2016, the number of intoxicated patients increased significantly. Eight patients were admitted to the hospital, without any deaths. The absolute number of patients stayed within normal range of emergency medical services capacity.

Performance of early warning and risk stratification scores versus clinical judgement in the acute setting: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Risk stratification is increasingly based on Early Warning Score (EWS)-based models, instead of clinical judgement. However, it is unknown how risk-stratification models and EWS perform as compared with the clinical judgement of treating acute healthcare providers. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of all available literature evaluating clinical judgement of healthcare providers to the use of risk-stratification models in predicting patients' clinical outcome. METHODS: Studies comparing clinical judgement and risk-stratification models in predicting outcomes in adult patients presenting at the ED were eligible for inclusion. Outcomes included the need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission; severe adverse events; clinical deterioration and mortality. Risk of bias among the included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. RESULTS: Six studies (6419 participants) were included of which 4 studies were judged to be at high risk of bias. Only descriptive analysis was performed as a meta-analysis was not possible due to few included studies and high clinical heterogeneity. The performance of clinical judgement and risk-stratification models were both moderate in predicting mortality, deterioration and need for ICU admission with area under the curves between 0.70 and 0.89. The performance of clinical judgement did not significantly differ from risk-stratification models in predicting mortality (n=2 studies) or deterioration (n=1 study). However, clinical judgement of healthcare providers was significantly better in predicting the need for ICU admission (n=2) and severe adverse events (n=1 study) as compared with risk-stratification models. CONCLUSION: Based on limited existing data, clinical judgement has greater accuracy in predicting the need for ICU admission and the occurrence of severe adverse events compared with risk-stratification models in ED patients. However, performance is similar in predicting mortality and deterioration. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020218893.

Early warning scores to assess the probability of critical illness in patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: Validated clinical risk scores are needed to identify patients with COVID-19 at risk of severe disease and to guide triage decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the performance of early warning scores (EWS) in the ED when identifying patients with COVID-19 who will require intensive care unit (ICU) admission for high-flow-oxygen usage or mechanical ventilation. METHODS: Patients with a proven SARS-CoV-2 infection with complete resuscitate orders treated in nine hospitals between 27 February and 30 July 2020 needing hospital admission were included. Primary outcome was the performance of EWS in identifying patients needing ICU admission within 24 hours after ED presentation. RESULTS: In total, 1501 patients were included. Median age was 71 (range 19-99) years and 60.3% were male. Of all patients, 86.9% were admitted to the general ward and 13.1% to the ICU within 24 hours after ED admission. ICU patients had lower peripheral oxygen saturation (86.7% vs 93.7, p≤0.001) and had a higher body mass index (29.2 vs 27.9 p=0.043) compared with non-ICU patients. National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) ≥ 6 and q-COVID Score were superior to all other studied clinical risk scores in predicting ICU admission with a fair area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.740 (95% CI 0.696 to 0.783) and 0.760 (95% CI 0.712 to 0.800), respectively. NEWS2 ≥6 and q-COVID Score ≥3 discriminated patients admitted to the ICU with a sensitivity of 78.1% and 75.9%, and specificity of 56.3% and 61.8%, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this multicentre study, the best performing models to predict ICU admittance were the NEWS2 and the Quick COVID-19 Severity Index Score, with fair diagnostic performance. However, due to the moderate performance, these models cannot be clinically used to adequately predict the need for ICU admission within 24 hours in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection presenting at the ED.

Comparing lung ultrasound: extensive versus short in COVID-19 (CLUES): a multicentre, observational study at the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Bedside lung ultrasound (LUS) is an affordable diagnostic tool that could contribute to identifying COVID-19 pneumonia. Different LUS protocols are currently used at the emergency department (ED) and there is a need to know their diagnostic accuracy. DESIGN: A multicentre, prospective, observational study, to compare the diagnostic accuracy of three commonly used LUS protocols in identifying COVID-19 pneumonia at the ED. SETTING/PATIENTS: Adult patients with suspected COVID-19 at the ED, in whom we prospectively performed 12-zone LUS and SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription PCR. MEASUREMENTS: We assessed diagnostic accuracy for three different ultrasound protocols using both PCR and final diagnosis as a reference standard. RESULTS: Between 19 March 2020 and 4 May 2020, 202 patients were included. Sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value compared with PCR for 12-zone LUS were 91.4% (95% CI 84.4 to 96.0), 83.5% (95% CI 74.6 to 90.3) and 90.0% (95% CI 82.7 to 94.4). For 8-zone and 6-zone protocols, these results were 79.7 (95% CI 69.9 to 87.6), 69.0% (95% CI 59.6 to 77.4) and 81.3% (95% CI 73.8 to 87.0) versus 89.9% (95% CI 81.7 to 95.3), 57.5% (95% CI 47.9 to 66.8) and 87.8% (95% CI 79.2 to 93.2). Negative likelihood ratios for 12, 8 and 6 zones were 0.1, 0.3 and 0.2, respectively. Compared with the final diagnosis specificity increased to 83.5% (95% CI 74.6 to 90.3), 78.4% (95% CI 68.8 to 86.1) and 65.0% (95% CI 54.6 to 74.4), respectively, while the negative likelihood ratios were 0.1, 0.2 and 0.16. CONCLUSION: Identifying COVID-19 pneumonia at the ED can be aided by bedside LUS. The more efficient 6-zone protocol is an excellent screening tool, while the 12-zone protocol is more specific and gives a general impression on lung involvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL8497.

Low dose oral haloperidol does not prolong QTc interval in older acutely hospitalised adults: a subanalysis of a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Haloperidol is the most frequently prescribed antipsychotic for delirium symptoms. The risk of QTc prolongation often raises concerns, although the effect of haloperidol on QTc interval has not yet been investigated in a randomised placebo-controlled fixed-dose study. METHODS: A subanalysis of a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study was conducted to evaluate the effect of prophylactic haloperidol 1 mg or placebo 1 mg orally twice-daily (maximum of 14 doses) on QTc interval in patients aged 70 years and over. Bedside, 12-lead ECGs were recorded before, during and after the one-week intervention period. Automatic QTc measurements were obtained in addition to manual measurements of QT and RR intervals, blinded for treatment status. Manual measurements were corrected (QTc) using Bazett (QTc-B), Framingham (QTc-Fa), Fridericia (QTc-Fi) and Hodges (QTc-H) methods. Mixed model analyses were used to test for differences in longitudinal course of QTc between patients receiving haloperidol and placebo. RESULTS: ECG recordings of 72 patients (haloperidol n = 38) were analysed, 45.8% male. Median (range) haloperidol serum concentration on day 4 was 0.71 (0.32-1.82) µg/L (n = 23). Longitudinal course of mean QTc did not significantly differ between treatment arms for any of the automatic or manually derived QTc values. CONCLUSIONS: Low dose oral haloperidol did not result in QTc prolongation in older acutely hospitalised patients. Results may not be generalizable to patients with existing ECG abnormalities such as atrial fibrillation.

Patients' and providers' perceptions of the preventability of hospital readmission: a prospective, observational study in four European countries.

OBJECTIVES: Because of fundamental differences in healthcare systems, US readmission data cannot be extrapolated to the European setting: To investigate the opinions of readmitted patients, their carers, nurses and physicians on predictability and preventability of readmissions and using majority consensus to determine contributing factors that could potentially foresee (preventable) readmissions. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. Readmitted patients, their carers, and treating professionals were surveyed during readmission to assess the discharge process and the predictability and preventability of the readmission. Cohen's Kappa measured pairwise agreement of considering readmission as predictable/preventable by patients, carers and professionals. Subsequently, multivariable logistic regressionidentified factors associated with predictability/preventability. SETTING: 15 hospitals in four European countries PARTICIPANTS: 1398 medical patients readmitted unscheduled within 30 days MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: (1) Agreement between the interviewed groups on considering readmissions likely predictable or preventable;(2) Factors distinguishing predictable from non-predictable and preventable from non-preventable readmissions. RESULTS: The majority deemed 27.8% readmissions potentially predictable and 14.4% potentially preventable. The consensus on predictability and preventability was poor, especially between patients and professionals (kappas ranged from 0.105 to 0.173). The interviewed selected different factors as potentially associated with predictability and preventability. When a patient reported that he was ready for discharge during index admission, the readmission was deemed less likely by the majority (predictability: OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.75; preventability: OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: There is no consensus between readmitted patients, their carers and treating professionals about predictability and preventability of readmissions, nor associated risk factors. A readmitted patient reporting not feeling ready for discharge at index admission was strongly associated with preventability/predictability. Therefore, healthcare workers should question patients' readiness to go home timely before discharge.

Epidemiology, recognition and documentation of sepsis in the pre-hospital setting and associated clinical outcomes: a prospective multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: General practitioners (GPs) and the emergency medical services (EMS) personnel have a pivotal role as points of entry into the acute care chain. This study was conducted to investigate the recognition of sepsis by GPs and EMS personnel and to evaluate the associations between recognition of sepsis in the pre-hospital setting and patient outcomes. Methods Design: prospective, observational study during a 12 week period in the emergency department (ED) of two academic hospitals. STUDY POPULATION: Patients >18 years presenting with sepsis at the ED. The information available in the ED discharge letter and the ED charts was used to make a definite diagnosis of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock Outcome measures: primary: recognition/documentation of sepsis. Secondary: ED arrival time to antibiotic administration, in-hospital mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS) and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. RESULTS: A total of 301 patients were included in the study. GPs and EMS personnel correctly identified and documented 31.6% (n=114) and 41.4% of all sepsis patients (n=140) respectively. Recognition and documentation of sepsis improved with increasing severity. The mean time to administration of antibiotics (TTA) was nearly halved for the group of patients where sepsis was documented (GP: 66,4 minutes, EMS: 65,6 minutes) compared to the group in which sepsis was not documented (GP: 123,9 minutes, EMS: 101,5 minutes; p: 0.365 and p: 0.024 respectively). Conclusions There is room for improvement in the recognition of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock by practitioners working in the pre-hospital setting. Documentation of sepsis prior to arrival in hospital led to a reduced time delay in administration of antibiotics.

Study protocol for a Multi-centre, Investigator-initiated, Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare the Effects of Prehospital Antibiotic Treatment for Sepsis Patients with Usual Care after Training Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Personnel in Early Recognition (- The Prehospital ANTibiotics Against Sepsis (PHANTASi) trial.

INTRODUCTION: Sepsis is one of the most frequent reasons for referral to emergency departments (EDs) worldwide. Sepsis becomes more serious when left untreated with a high mortality rate, exceeding even those of myocardial infarction and stroke. Therefore, much effort has been put in to start with appropriate therapy as early as possible. Emergency medical services (EMS) personnel have already made a significant difference in improving care for patients with acute coronary syndrome, multiple trauma and stroke. Patients with severe sepsis or septic shock could also benefit from timely prehospital care. Earlier recognition and initiation of treatment by EMS personnel may improve survival of these critically ill patients. Methods and analysis: The Prehospital Antibiotics against Sepsis (PHANTASi) trial is an investigator- initiated, multicentre, randomized controlled open-label clinical trial nested within a step wedge design. This study compares the effects of usual care to that of training EMS personnel in recognizing and initiating treatment in the prehospital setting together with early administration of antibiotics for patients suspected of (severe) sepsis and septic shock. Primary outcome is 28 day mortality. Secondary outcomes include, length of hospital stay and admission to intensive care units. Ethics and dissemination: This study has been approved by the research ethics committee of VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (Protocol 2013.458/ NL 42001.029.13). The results of the study will be disseminated at several research conferences and international peer reviewed journals. The study will be implemented and reported in line with the CONSORT statement.