Clinical prediction rule for SARS-CoV-2 infection from 116 U.S. emergency departments 2-22-2021.

OBJECTIVES: Accurate and reliable criteria to rapidly estimate the probability of infection with the novel coronavirus-2 that causes the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) and associated disease (COVID-19) remain an urgent unmet need, especially in emergency care. The objective was to derive and validate a clinical prediction score for SARS-CoV-2 infection that uses simple criteria widely available at the point of care. METHODS: Data came from the registry data from the national REgistry of suspected COVID-19 in EmeRgency care (RECOVER network) comprising 116 hospitals from 25 states in the US. Clinical variables and 30-day outcomes were abstracted from medical records of 19,850 emergency department (ED) patients tested for SARS-CoV-2. The criterion standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 required a positive molecular test from a swabbed sample or positive antibody testing within 30 days. The prediction score was derived from a 50% random sample (n = 9,925) using unadjusted analysis of 107 candidate variables as a screening step, followed by stepwise forward logistic regression on 72 variables. RESULTS: Multivariable regression yielded a 13-variable score, which was simplified to a 13-point score: +1 point each for age>50 years, measured temperature>37.5°C, oxygen saturation<95%, Black race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, household contact with known or suspected COVID-19, patient reported history of dry cough, anosmia/dysgeusia, myalgias or fever; and -1 point each for White race, no direct contact with infected person, or smoking. In the validation sample (n = 9,975), the probability from logistic regression score produced an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.79-0.81), and this level of accuracy was retained across patients enrolled from the early spring to summer of 2020. In the simplified score, a score of zero produced a sensitivity of 95.6% (94.8-96.3%), specificity of 20.0% (19.0-21.0%), negative likelihood ratio of 0.22 (0.19-0.26). Increasing points on the simplified score predicted higher probability of infection (e.g., >75% probability with +5 or more points). CONCLUSION: Criteria that are available at the point of care can accurately predict the probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These criteria could assist with decisions about isolation and testing at high throughput checkpoints.

Multicenter registry of United States emergency department patients tested for SARS-CoV-2.

This paper summarizes the methodology for the registry of suspected COVID-19 in emergency care (RECOVER), a large clinical registry of patients from 155 United States (US) emergency departments (EDs) in 27 states tested for SARS-CoV-2 from March-September 2020. The initial goals are to derive and test: (1) a pretest probability instrument for prediction of SARS-CoV-2 test results, and from this instrument, a set of simple criteria to exclude COVID-19 (the COVID-19 Rule-Out Criteria-the CORC rule), and (2) a prognostic instrument for those with COVID-19. Patient eligibility included any ED patient tested for SARS-CoV-2 with a nasal or oropharyngeal swab. Abstracted clinical data included 204 variables representing the earliest manifestation of infection, including week of testing, demographics, symptoms, exposure risk, past medical history, test results, admission status, and outcomes 30 days later. In addition to the primary goals, the registry will provide a vital platform for characterizing the course, epidemiology, clinical features, and prognosis of patients tested for COVID-19 in the ED setting.

Randomized Trial of Therapy Dogs Versus Deliberative Coloring (Art Therapy) to Reduce Stress in Emergency Medicine Providers.

OBJECTIVE: Cognitive stress during shift work contributes to burnout in emergency department (ED) workers. We hypothesize that if physicians and nurses interact with a therapy dog for 5 minutes while on ED shift, both their perceived and their manifested stress levels will decrease. METHODS: In this single-center, prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial (NCT03628820), we tested the effectiveness of therapy dogs versus coloring a mandala and versus no intervention (control) on provider stress. Consenting emergency medicine physicians and nurses provided three self-reported assessments of stress and saliva samples at the start (T1), at the middle (T2), and near the end (T3) of shift. Thirty minutes prior to T2, participants were randomized to either interacting with a therapy dog or coloring for 5 minutes; controls had neither. Stress was assessed on visual analog scale (VAS, 0-100 mm) and with salivary cortisol (Salimetrics) and the modified Perceived Stress Scale (mPSS-10). To assess potential change in participant behavior, patients of providers in either group were asked to complete an internally derived survey of empathic behaviors displayed by providers at T1 and T3. RESULTS: We enrolled 122 providers (n = 39 control, n = 40 coloring, n = 43 dog); 48% were residents, and 60% enrolled on an evening shift. At T1, mean (±SD) VAS score was not different between groups (18.2 [±17.8] mm). At T3, VAS tended to increase with coloring (24.5 mm), remain unchanged in controls (20 mm), and decreased slightly with dogs (13.6 mm, p = 0.018 vs. coloring, Tukey's post hoc). Salivary cortisol levels were consistently highest at the beginning of each providers' shift and were significantly decreased versus control in both the dog and the coloring groups (p < 0.05, Tukey's). We observed no difference between groups for the mPSS-10 nor in patient reported survey of empathic behaviors. CONCLUSION: This randomized controlled clinical trial demonstrates preliminary evidence that a 5-minute therapy dog interaction while on shift can reduce provider stress in ED physicians and nurses.

Controlled clinical trial of canine therapy versus usual care to reduce patient anxiety in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: Test if therapy dogs reduce anxiety in emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: In this controlled clinical trial (NCT03471429), medically stable, adult patients were approached if the physician believed that the patient had "moderate or greater anxiety." Patients were allocated on a 1:1 ratio to either 15 min exposure to a certified therapy dog and handler (dog), or usual care (control). Patient reported anxiety, pain and depression were assessed using a 0-10 scale (10 = worst). Primary outcome was change in anxiety from baseline (T0) to 30 min and 90 min after exposure to dog or control (T1 and T2 respectively); secondary outcomes were pain, depression and frequency of pain medication. RESULTS: Among 93 patients willing to participate in research, 7 had aversions to dogs, leaving 86 (92%) were willing to see a dog six others met exclusion criteria, leaving 40 patients allocated to each group (dog or control). Median and mean baseline anxiety, pain and depression scores were similar between groups. With dog exposure, median anxiety decreased significantly from T0 to T1: 6 (IQR 4-9.75) to T1: 2 (0-6) compared with 6 (4-8) to 6 (2.5-8) in controls (P<0.001, for T1, Mann-Whitney U and unpaired t-test). Dog exposure was associated with significantly lower anxiety at T2 and a significant overall treatment effect on two-way repeated measures ANOVA for anxiety, pain and depression. After exposure, 1/40 in the dog group needed pain medication, versus 7/40 in controls (P = 0.056, Fisher's exact test). CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to therapy dogs plus handlers significantly reduced anxiety in ED patients.