Disparities in emergency department access, resource allocation, and outcomes between migrants and the local population.

AIMS: To characterize a group of migrant emergency department (ED) patients regarding demographics, access to the ED, mode of referral, use of resources, and short-term outcomes, and to compare them to a group of local ED patients. METHODS: Prospective cohort study with consecutive enrollment of adult patients presenting to the ED of a Swiss tertiary care hospital from October 21st to November 11th, 2013 and February 1st to February 23rd, 2015. In accordance with the International Organization for Migration, we defined migrants as persons who have changed their country of usual residence, irrespective of their legal status. The primary outcome was defined as the number of resources allocated to migrants, as compared to local patients, using uni- and multivariable quasi-Poisson regressions. Acute morbidity, hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and 30-day mortality were assessed as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Migrant patients were younger, more often male and self-presenters, and of lower acuity. After adjustment for age, gender and acuity, we observed a non-significant difference of 3.6% in the mean number of resources allocated to migrant patients as compared to local patients (adjusted RR 0.964, CI 0.923-1.006). No difference in 30-day mortality (adjusted OR 0.777, CI 0.346-1.559) was observed between the two patient groups, but migrant patients had lower odds of acute morbidity (adjusted OR 0.652, CI 0.560-0.759), hospitalization (adjusted OR 0.666, CI 0.555-0.799), and ICU admission (adjusted OR 0.649, CI 0.456-0.910). CONCLUSIONS: ED access approximation, resource allocation, and mortality were comparable between migrant patients and local patients. Lower admission rates to wards and the ICU may raise concerns but can be explained by lower acute morbidity in migrant patients.

Mimics and chameleons of COVID-19: patient presentation and accuracy of triage during the first wave.

STUDY AIMS: To quantify mimics and chameleons of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), to analyse the diagnostic accuracy of the triage protocol, and to describe the resulting groups of mimics and chameleons - including their presenting symptoms and final diagnoses. METHODS: Diagnostic accuracy study including all adult patients tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at the emergency department of the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland during the first wave of pandemic in spring 2020. Diagnostic accuracy of triage was determined by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and positive and negative likelihood ratio. Triage to the group of suspected (+) and not suspected (-) COVID-19 was considered the index test, whereas a SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test result was used as reference standard. Mimics were defined as false positives and chameleons as false negatives. RESULTS: Of 2898 patients included in the analysis, 191 were true positives, 895 were false positives (mimics), 9 were false negatives (chameleons) and 1803 were true negatives. This resulted in a sensitivity of 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-0.98) and a specificity of 0.67 (95% CI 0.65-0.69) for standardised triage. Among mimics, the main categories of final diagnoses were other infections (n = 513, 57.3%), cardiovascular diseases (excluding cerebrovascular) (n = 125, 14%), and non-infectious diseases of the respiratory system (n = 84, 9.4%). Fever (n = 357, 39.9% vs n = 104, 54.5%), cough (n = 466, 52.1% vs n = 126 66%), and smell or taste dysfunction (n = 60, 6.7% vs n = 24, 12.6%) were less frequently observed in mimics than in COVID-19 patients. Eight of nine COVID-19 chameleons presented with either nonspecific complaints (weakness and/or fatigue) or gastrointestinal symptoms. CONCLUSION: The quantitative assessment of COVID-19 mimics and chameleons showed a high prevalence of mimics. Clinical differentiation between true positives and false positives is not feasible due to largely overlapping symptoms. Prevalence of chameleons was very low.

Association of Frailty with Adverse Outcomes in Patients with Suspected COVID-19 Infection.

Older age and frailty are predictors of adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19. In emergency medicine, patients do not present with the diagnosis, but with suspicion of COVID-19. The aim of this study was to assess the association of frailty and age with death or admission to intensive care in patients with suspected COVID-19. This single-centre prospective cohort study was performed in the Emergency Department of a tertiary care hospital. Patients, 65 years and older, with suspected COVID-19 presenting to the Emergency Department during the first wave of the pandemic were consecutively enrolled. All patients underwent nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 PCR swab tests. Patients with a Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) > 4, were considered to be frail. Associations between age, gender, frailty, and COVID-19 status with the composite adverse outcome of 30-day-intensive-care-admission and/or 30-day-mortality were tested. In the 372 patients analysed, the median age was 77 years, 154 (41.4%) were women, 44 (11.8%) were COVID-19-positive, and 125 (33.6%) were frail. The worst outcome was seen in frail COVID-19-patients with six (66.7%) adverse outcomes. Frailty (CFS > 4) and COVID-19-positivity were associated with an adverse outcome after adjustment for age and gender (frailty: OR 5.01, CI 2.56-10.17, p < 0.001; COVID-19: OR 3.47, CI 1.48-7.89, p = 0.003). Frailty was strongly associated with adverse outcomes and outperformed age as a predictor in emergency patients with suspected COVID-19.

Direct Comparison of Clinical Characteristics, Outcomes, and Risk Prediction in Patients with COVID-19 and Controls-A Prospective Cohort Study.

Most studies investigating early risk predictors in coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) lacked comparison with controls. We aimed to assess and directly compare outcomes and risk predictors at time of emergency department (ED) presentation in COVID-19 and controls. Consecutive patients presenting to the ED with suspected COVID-19 were prospectively enrolled. COVID-19-patients were compared with (i) patients tested negative (overall controls) and (ii) patients tested negative, who had a respiratory infection (respiratory controls). Primary outcome was the composite of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death at 30 days. Among 1081 consecutive cases, 191 (18%) were tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and 890 (82%) were tested negative (overall controls), of which 323 (30%) had a respiratory infection (respiratory controls). Incidence of the composite outcome was significantly higher in COVID-19 (23%) as compared with the overall control group (10%, adjusted-HR 2.45 (95%CI, 1.61-3.74), p < 0.001) or the respiratory control group (10%, adjusted-HR 2.93 (95%CI, 1.66-5.17), p < 0.001). Blood oxygen saturation, age, high-sensitivity troponin, c-reactive protein, and lactate dehydrogenase were identified as the strongest predictors of poor outcome available at time of ED presentation in COVID-19 with highly comparable prognostic utility in overall and respiratory controls. In conclusion, patients presenting to the ED with COVID-19 have a worse outcome than controls, even after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics. Most predictors of poor outcome in COVID-19 were not restricted to COVID-19, but of comparable prognostic utility in controls and therefore generalizable to unselected patients with suspected COVID-19.