Development and Internal Validation of a Multivariable Prediction Model to Predict Repeat Attendances in the Pediatric Emergency Department: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: Unplanned reattendances to the pediatric emergency department (PED) occur commonly in clinical practice. Multiple factors influence the decision to return to care, and understanding risk factors may allow for better design of clinical services. We developed a clinical prediction model to predict return to the PED within 72 hours from the index visit. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all attendances to the PED of Royal Manchester Children's Hospital between 2009 and 2019. Attendances were excluded if they were admitted to hospital, aged older than 16 years or died in the PED. Variables were collected from Electronic Health Records reflecting triage codes. Data were split temporally into a training (80%) set for model development and a test (20%) set for internal validation. We developed the prediction model using LASSO penalized logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 308,573 attendances were included in the study. There were 14,276 (4.63%) returns within 72 hours of index visit. The final model had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.65) on temporal validation. The calibration of the model was good, although with some evidence of miscalibration at the high extremes of the risk distribution. After-visit diagnoses codes reflecting a nonspecific problem ("unwell child") were more common in children who went on to reattend. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and internally validated a clinical prediction model for unplanned reattendance to the PED using routinely collected clinical data, including markers of socioeconomic deprivation. This model allows for easy identification of children at the greatest risk of return to PED.

Experience of using a regional network of hospitals in the care of older inpatients with COVID-19 in spring 2020.

Introduction: Frail, older patients with COVID-19 have an increased risk of hospital admission and death. Methods: We studied a regional model of care used for older patients with COVID-19 in spring 2020 across three settings: an acute teaching hospital, a district general hospital and a temporary emergency hospital. We also studied demographic and outcome data for these patients. Results: Increasing bed capacity in non-acute sites freed up beds in acute hospitals. Strict admission criteria and multidisciplinary team involvement allowed for the safe delivery of care in step-down sites. Conclusion: This model of care allowed for patient flow out of acute sites following the acute stage of their illness allowing for an increase in bed capacity while providing a safe setting for ongoing management.

Bilateral ocular toxoplasmosis in a returning traveller: age and route of infection as potential risk factors.

We report the case of a 69-year-old man, who presented in the UK with a short history of deteriorating vision and clinical features of bilateral atypical retinochoroiditis, after travelling to South America. Vitreous samples demonstrated Toxoplasma gondii DNA by PCR. Serology tests demonstrated recent acquired Toxoplasma gondii infection with IgM antibodies. He responded well to treatment with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, azithromycin and oral steroids.This case is a reminder of the global importance of Toxoplasma related eye disease, and its uncommon bilateral severe presentation in a returning traveller, where the risk factors were age and the route of infection likely to be a virulent parasite oocyst from vegetables or water rather than undercooked meat or direct contact with cats.

Clinical frailty as a key characteristic of the patient population of the NHS Nightingale North West COVID-19 temporary emergency field hospital: cohort study April to June 2020.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 temporary emergency 'field' hospitals have been established in the UK to support the surge capacity of the National Health Service while protecting the community from onward infection. We described the population of one such hospital and investigated the impact of frailty on clinical outcomes. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: NHS Nightingale Hospital North West, April-June 2020. PARTICIPANTS: All in-patients with COVID-19. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality and duration of admission. METHODS: We analysed factors associated with mortality using logistic regression and admission duration using Cox's regression, and described trends in frailty prevalence over time using linear regression. RESULTS: A total of 104 COVID-19 patients were admitted, 74% with moderate-to-severe frailty (clinical frailty score, CFS > 5). A total of 84 were discharged, 14 transferred to other hospitals, and six died on site. High C-reactive protein (CRP) > 50 mg/dL predicted 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio 11.9, 95%CI 3.2-51.5, p < 0.001). Patients with CFS > 5 had a 10-day median admission, versus 7-day for CFS ≤ 5 and half the likelihood of discharge on a given day (adjusted hazard ratio 0.51, 95%CI 0.29-0.92, p = 0.024). CRP > 50 mg/dL and hospital-associated COVID-19 also predicted admission duration. As more frail patients had a lower rate of discharge, prevalence of CFS > 5 increased from 64% initially to 90% in the final week (non-zero slope p < 0.001). Conclusions: The NNW population was characterized by high levels of frailty, which increased over the course of the hospital's operation, with subsequent operational implications. Identifying and responding to the needs of this population, and acknowledging the risks of this unusual clinical context, helped the hospital to keep patients safe.

Professionals underestimate patients' pain: a comprehensive review.

Pain assessment by patients is the rule in clinical trials but may not be in clinical practice. We examined studies comparing assessment of pain by patients and professionals in clinical practice using published studies (1990-2016; ≥20 patients), in English, in an institutional setting, comparing pain assessment within 24 hours by patients and health care professionals. A difference of at least 10% of the maximum score was considered significant. We judged quality on sampling method, blinding, and study size. Eighty studies (20,496 patients) provided data from a range of settings and locations; most (51%) used unbiased sampling, and most (68%) were blind or probably blind. Nine studies with ≥500 patients involved 58% of patients; 60 with <200 patients involved 25%. Large studies were more likely to use comprehensive or random sampling and blinding of patients and professionals. Underestimation of pain by professionals compared with patients was reported by 62/80 studies (78%); there was no difference in 17 (21%) and overestimation in 1 (1%). Underestimation was reported in 75% of large studies (>500 patients), 91% of mid-sized studies (200-400), and 78% of small studies (<200). High-quality studies (blind, comprehensive, or random sampling, >200 patients) consistently reported underestimation (10/11; 91%). The extent of underestimation tended to increase with pain severity. Professionals consistently tend to underestimate pain compared with assessment by patients. This tendency is more pronounced with more severe pain, and the extent of underestimation can be large. It is likely that this contributes to undertreatment of pain.