Dataset Information

Which parameters support disposition decision in suspected COVID-19 cases in the emergency department (ED): a German clinical cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

One major goal of the emergency department (ED) is to decide, whether patients need to be hospitalised or can be sent home safely. We aim at providing criteria for these decisions without knowing the SARS-CoV-2 test result in suspected cases.

Setting

Tertiary emergency medicine.

Participants

All patients were treated at the ED of the Charité during the pandemic peak and underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing. Patients with positive test results were characterised in detail and underwent a 14-day-follow-up.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Logistic regression and classification and regression tree (CART) analyses were performed to identify predictors (primary endpoint), which confirm safe discharge. The clinical endpoint was all-cause mortality or need for mechanical ventilation during index stay or after readmission.

Results

The primary test population of suspected COVID-19 consisted of n=1255 cases, 45.2% were women (n=567). Of these, n=110 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (8.8%). The median age of SARS-CoV-2-positive cases was 45 years (IQR: 33-66 years), whereas the median age of the group tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 was 42 years (IQR: 30-60 years) (p=0.096). 43.6% were directly admitted to hospital care.CART analysis identified the variables oxygen saturation (<95%), dyspnoea and history of cardiovascular (CV) disease to distinguish between high and low-risk groups. If all three variables were negative, most patients were discharged from ED, and the incidence of the clinical endpoint was 0%. The validation cohort confirmed the safety of discharge using these variables and revealed an incidence of the clinical endpoint from 14.3% in patients with CV disease, 9.4% in patients with dyspnoea and 18.2% in patients with O₂ satuaration below 95%.

Conclusions

Based on easily available variables like dyspnoea, oxygen saturation, history of CV disease, approximately 25% of patients subsequently confirmed with COVID-19 can be identified for safe discharge.

Trial registration number

DRKS00023117.

SUBMITTER: Mockel M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8015792 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Following emergency department (ED) assessment, patients with infection may be directly admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) or alternatively admitted to hospital wards or sent home. Those admitted to the hospital wards or sent home may experience future deterioration necessitating ICU admission.We used a prospectively collected registry from two hospitals within a single tertiary care hospital network between 2011 and 2014. Patient information, outcomes, and costs were stored in the hospital data warehouse. Patients were categorized into three groups: (1) admitted directly from the ED to the ICU; (2) initially admitted to the hospital wards, with ICU admission within 72 hours of initial presentation; or (3) sent home from the ED, with ICU admission within 72 hours of initial presentation. Using multivariable logistic regression, we sought to compare outcomes and total costs between groups. Total costs were evaluated using a generalized linear model.A total of 657 patients were included; of these, 338 (51.4%) were admitted directly from the ED to the ICU, 246 (37.4%) were initially admitted to the wards and then to the ICU, and 73 (11.1%) were initially sent home and then admitted to the ICU. In-hospital mortality was lowest among patients admitted directly to the ICU (29.5%), as compared with patients admitted to the ICU from wards (42.7%) or home (61.6%) (P?<?0.001). As compared with direct ICU admission, disposition to the ward was associated with an adjusted OR of 1.75 (95% CI, 1.22-2.50; P?<?0.01) for mortality, and disposition home was associated with an adjusted OR of 4.02 (95% CI, 2.32-6.98). Mean total costs were lowest among patients directly admitted to the ICU ($26,748), as compared with those admitted from the wards ($107,315) and those initially sent home ($71,492) (P?<?0.001). Cost per survivor was lower among patients directly admitted to the ICU ($37,986) than either those initially admitted to the wards ($187,230) or those sent home ($186,390) (P?<?0.001).In comparison with direct admission to the ICU, patients with suspected infection admitted to the ICU who have previously been discharged home or admitted to the ward are associated with higher in-hospital mortality and costs.

Project description:IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic compelled health systems to protect patients and medical personnel during transit in hospitals by minimising transfers, prompting the use of telehealth systems. In the field of neurology, telemedicine has been used in emergency settings for acute stroke management between spoke and hub hospital networks, where good outcomes have been achieved. However, data on the use of telemedicine in non-stroke acute neurological conditions accessing the emergency department (ED) are currently missing.Methods and analysesThis is an interventional, open-label trial on the use of teleconsultation in the ED for neurological diseases other than stroke. The study aims to develop a remote consultancy system (TeleNeurological Evaluation and Support, TeleNS) for patients with acute neurological symptoms referred to hospital facilities without a 24-hour availability of a neurologist consultant (spoke hospitals). The study population will include 100 ED patients referred to two spoke hospitals in 6 months, who will be asked to perform teleconsultation instead of inperson visits. As a control group, retrospectively available data from patients admitted to the ED of spoke hospitals during the same time period over the last 2 years will be evaluated. The primary objective is to assess whether a TeleNS for the ED guarantees a faster but qualitatively non-inferior diagnostic/therapeutic work-up if compared with inperson examination, assuring the availability of all the necessary examinations and treatments with consistent time-saving.Ethics and disseminationThe trial was designed following the national guidelines on clinical investigation on telemedicine provided by the Italian Ministry of Health and according to the Standard Protocol Items for Randomized Trials statement guidelines. This research protocol was approved by Comitato Etico Area Vasta Emilia Nord in September 2020 (number/identification: 942/2020/DISP/AOUMO SIRER ID 805) and was written without patient involvement. Patients' associations will be involved in the dissemination of study design and results. The results of the study will be presented during scientific symposia or published in scientific journals.Trial registration numberNCT04611295.

Project description:ImportanceFatal human rabies infections can be prevented through appropriate rabies postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). Errors in patient selection and administration of human rabies immune globulin in the emergency department (ED) setting were identified in a previous study of rabies PEP administration.ObjectiveTo test the a priori hypothesis that implementation of a rabies PEP bundle in the ED would improve full adherence to 6 human rabies immune globulin quality indicators compared with preimplementation controls.Design, setting, and participantsThis quality improvement study was conducted in 15 EDs in a US multihospital health system. Patients who received human rabies immune globulin or rabies vaccine in the ED from January 2015 to June 2018 were included in the preimplementation control group and from December 2019 to November 2020 were included in the postimplementation intervention group. Data were analyzed in January 2021.ExposureThe PEP bundle was implemented in December 2019 and consisted of electronic health record enhancements, including clinical decision support, ED staff education, and patient education.Main outcomes and measuresFull adherence to 6 human rabies immune globulin quality indicators: patient selection, dose, timing, infiltration into wounds, administration distant from rabies vaccine site, and administration that avoids the buttock.ResultsThe study included 324 patients; 254 patients were in preimplementation group (mean [SD] age, 39 [21] years; 135 [53%] women) and 70 in the postimplementation group (mean [SD] age, 38 [19] years; 33 [47%] women). Most patients presented to EDs embedded in a community hospital (231 patients [71%]). Full adherence increased from 37% in the preimplementation group to 61% postimplementation (absolute increase, 24%; 95% CI, 11% to 37%; P < .001). Adherence improved for quality indicators for infiltration into wounds (137 of 254 patients [54%] to 50 of 70 patients [71%]; P = .009), administration distant from rabies vaccine site (180 of 254 [71%] to 58 of 70 [83%]; P = .04), and administration that avoids the buttock (168 of 254 [66%] to 58 of 70 [83%]; P = .007). No instances of sciatic nerve injury or compartment syndrome were observed.Conclusions and relevanceIn this quality improvement study, implementation of a rabies PEP bundle was associated with improved patient selection and delivery of human rabies immune globulin in EDs across a multihospital health system. Although the bundle included ED staff education and patient discharge education, the observed improvement was likely driven by clinical decision support from the rabies PEP ED order set. Future research should evaluate implementation of this clinical decision support at other health systems.

Project description:ObjectiveTo map the physician approach when determining disposition for a patient who presents without the level of definite medical acuity that would generally warrant hospitalisation.Data sources/study settingSince 2018, our US academic county hospital/trauma centre has maintained a database in which hospitalists ('triage physicians') document the rationale and outcomes of requests for admission to the acute care medical ward during each shift.Study designNarrative text from the database was analysed using a grounded theory approach to identify major themes and subthemes, and a conceptual model of the admission decision-making process was constructed.ParticipantsDatabase entries were included (n=300) if the admission call originated from the emergency department and if the triage physician characterised the request as potentially inappropriate because the patient did not have definite medical acuity.ResultsAdmission decision making occurs in three main phases: evaluation of unmet needs, assessment of risk and re-evaluation. Importantly, admission decision making is not solely based on medical acuity or clinical algorithms, and patients without a definite medical need for admission are hospitalised when physicians believe a potential issue exists if discharged. In this way, factors such as homelessness, substance use disorder, frailty, etc, contribute to admission because they raise concern about patient safety and/or barriers to appropriate treatment. Physician decision making can be altered by activities such as care coordination, advocacy by the patient or surrogate, interactions with other physicians or a change in clinical trajectory.ConclusionsThe decision to admit ultimately remains a clinical determination constructed between physician and patient. Physicians use a holistic process that incorporates broad consideration of the patient's medical and social needs with emphasis on risk assessment; thus, any analysis of hospitalisation trends or efforts to impact such should seek to understand this individual-level decision making.

Project description:BackgroundThe Canadian Computed Tomography (CT) Head Rule, a clinical decision rule designed to safely reduce imaging in minor head injury, has been rigorously validated and implemented, and yet expected decreases in CT were unsuccessful. Recent work has identified empathic care as a key component in decreasing CT overuse. Health information technology can hinder the clinician-patient relationship. Patient-centered decision tools to support the clinician-patient relationship are needed to promote evidence-based decisions.ObjectiveOur objective is to formatively evaluate an electronic tool that not only helps clinicians at the bedside to determine the need for CT use based on the Canadian CT Head Rule but also promotes evidence-based conversations between patients and clinicians regarding patient-specific risk and patients' specific concerns.MethodsUser-centered design with practice-based and participatory decision aid development was used to design, develop, and evaluate patient-centered decision support regarding CT use in minor head injury in the emergency department. User experience and user interface (UX/UI) development involved successive iterations with incremental refinement in 4 phases: (1) initial prototype development, (2) usability assessment, (3) field testing, and (4) beta testing. This qualitative approach involved input from patients, emergency care clinicians, health services researchers, designers, and clinical informaticists at every stage.ResultsThe Concussion or Brain Bleed app is the product of 16 successive iterative revisions in accordance with UX/UI industry design standards. This useful and usable final product integrates clinical decision support with a patient decision aid. It promotes shared use by emergency clinicians and patients at the point of care within the emergency department context. This tablet computer app facilitates evidence-based conversations regarding CT in minor head injury. It is adaptable to individual clinician practice styles. The resultant tool includes a patient injury evaluator based on the Canadian CT Head Rule and provides patient specific risks using pictographs with natural frequencies and cues for discussion about patient concerns.ConclusionsThis tool was designed to align evidence-based practices about CT in minor head injury patients. It establishes trust, empowers active participation, and addresses patient concerns and uncertainty about their condition. We hypothesize that, when implemented, the Concussion or Brain Bleed app will support-not hinder-the clinician-patient relationship, safely reduce CT use, and improve the patient experience of care.

Project description:ObjectiveAdoption of clinical decision support (CDS) tools by clinicians is often limited by workflow barriers. We sought to assess characteristics associated with clinician use of an electronic health record-embedded clinical decision support system (CDSS).MethodsIn a prospective study on emergency department (ED) activation of a CDSS tool across 14 hospitals between 9/1/14 to 4/30/15, the CDSS was deployed at 10 active sites with an on-site champion, education sessions, iterative feedback, and up to 3 gift cards/clinician as an incentive. The tool was also deployed at 4 passive sites that received only an introductory educational session. Activation of the CDSS - which calculated the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) score and provided guidance - and associated clinical data were collected prospectively. We used multivariable logistic regression with random effects at provider/facility levels to assess the association between activation of the CDSS tool and characteristics at: 1) patient level (PESI score), 2) provider level (demographics and clinical load at time of activation opportunity), and 3) facility level (active vs. passive site, facility ED volume, and ED acuity at time of activation opportunity).ResultsOut of 662 eligible patient encounters, the CDSS was activated in 55%: active sites: 68% (346/512); passive sites 13% (20/150). In bivariate analysis, active sites had an increase in activation rates based on the number of prior gift cards the physician had received (96% if 3 prior cards versus 60% if 0, p<0.0001). At passive sites, physicians < age 40 had higher rates of activation (p=0.03). In multivariable analysis, active site status, low ED volume at the time of diagnosis and PESI scores I or II (compared to III or higher) were associated with higher likelihood of CDSS activation.ConclusionsPerforming on-site tool promotion significantly increased odds of CDSS activation. Optimizing CDSS adoption requires active education.

Project description:Recent health policy changes have focused efforts on reducing emergency department (ED) visits as a way to reduce costs and improve quality of care. This was a systematic review of interventions based outside the ED aimed at reducing ED use.This study was designed as a systematic review. We reviewed the literature on interventions in five categories: patient education, creation of additional non-ED capacity, managed care, prehospital diversion, and patient financial incentives. Studies written in English, with interventions administered outside of the ED, and a comparison group where ED use was an outcome, were included. Two independent reviewers screened search results using MEDLINE, Cochrane, OAIster, or Scopus. The following data were abstracted from included studies: type of intervention, study design, population, details of intervention, effect on ED use, effect on non-ED health care use, and other health and financial outcomes. Quality of individual articles was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines.Of 39 included studies, 34 were observational and five were randomized controlled trials. Two of five studies on patient education found reductions in ED use ranging from 21% to 80%. Out of 10 studies of additional non-ED capacity, four showed decreases of 9% to 54%, and one a 21% increase. Both studies on prehospital diversion found reductions of 3% to 7%. Of 12 studies on managed care, 10 had decreases ranging from 1% to 46%. Nine out of 10 studies on patient financial incentives found decreases of 3% to 50%, and one a 34% increase. Nineteen studies reported effect on non-ED use with mixed results. Seventeen studies included data on health outcomes, but 13 of these only included data on hospitalizations rather than morbidity and mortality. Seven studies included data on cost outcomes. According to the GRADE guidelines, all studies had at least some risk of bias, with four moderate quality, one low quality, and 34 very low quality studies.Many studies have explored interventions based outside the ED to reduce ED use in various populations, with mixed evidence. Approximately two-thirds identified here showed reductions in ED use. The interventions with the greatest number of studies showing reductions in ED use include patient financial incentives and managed care, while the greatest magnitude of reductions were found in patient education. These findings have implications for insurers and policymakers seeking to reduce ED use.

Project description:ImportanceSuicide is a leading cause of deaths in the United States. Although the emergency department (ED) is an opportune setting for initiating suicide prevention efforts, ED-initiated suicide prevention interventions remain underdeveloped.ObjectiveTo determine whether an ED-initiated intervention reduces subsequent suicidal behavior.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter study of 8 EDs in the United States enrolled adults with a recent suicide attempt or ideation and was composed of 3 sequential phases: (1) a treatment as usual (TAU) phase from August 2010 to December 2011, (2) a universal screening (screening) phase from September 2011 to December 2012, and (3) a universal screening plus intervention (intervention) phase from July 2012 to November 2013.InterventionsScreening consisted of universal suicide risk screening. The intervention phase consisted of universal screening plus an intervention, which included secondary suicide risk screening by the ED physician, discharge resources, and post-ED telephone calls focused on reducing suicide risk.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was suicide attempts (nonfatal and fatal) over the 52-week follow-up period. The proportion and total number of attempts were analyzed.ResultsA total of 1376 participants were recruited, including 769 females (55.9%) with a median (interquartile range) age of 37 (26-47) years. A total of 288 participants (20.9%) made at least 1 suicide attempt, and there were 548 total suicide attempts among participants. There were no significant differences in risk reduction between the TAU and screening phases (23% vs 22%, respectively). However, compared with the TAU phase, patients in the intervention phase showed a 5% absolute reduction in suicide attempt risk (23% vs 18%), with a relative risk reduction of 20%. Participants in the intervention phase had 30% fewer total suicide attempts than participants in the TAU phase. Negative binomial regression analysis indicated that the participants in the intervention phase had significantly fewer total suicide attempts than participants in the TAU phase (incidence rate ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-1.00; P = .05) but no differences between the TAU and screening phases (incidence rate ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.71-1.41; P = .99).Conclusions and relevanceAmong at-risk patients in the ED, a combination of brief interventions administered both during and after the ED visit decreased post-ED suicidal behavior.