Emergency department bounceback characteristics for patients diagnosed with COVID-19.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
The global healthcare burden of COVID-19 continues to rise. There is currently limited information regarding the disease progression and the need for hospitalizations in patients who present to the Emergency Department (ED) with minimal or no symptoms.Objectives
This study identifies bounceback rates and timeframes for patients who return to the ED due to COVID-19 after initial discharge on the date of testing.Methods
Using the NorthShore University Health System's (NSUHS) Enterprise Data Warehouse (EDW), we conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of patients who were tested positive for COVID-19 and were discharged home on the date of testing. A one-month follow-up period was included to ensure the capture of disease progression.Results
Of 1883 positive cases with initially mild symptoms, 14.6% returned to the ED for complaints related to COVID-19. 56.9% of the mildly symptomatic bounceback patients were discharged on the return visit while 39.5% were admitted to the floor and 3.6% to the ICU. Of the 1120 positive cases with no initial symptoms, only four returned to the ED (0.26%) and only one patient was admitted. Median initial testing occurred on day 3 (2-5.6) of illness, and median ED bounceback occurred on day 9 (6.3-12.7). Our statistical model was unable to identify risk factors for ED bouncebacks.Conclusion
COVID-19 patients diagnosed with mild symptoms on initial presentation have a 14.6% rate of bounceback due to progression of illness.
SUBMITTER: Haag A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8054547 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionPatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can present with chest pain. However, the characteristics of this chest pain are unknown. We performed a single-centre observational study to review and summarise chest pain characteristics in COVID-19 patients at first presentation to the emergency department (ED).MethodsWe collected data on characteristics of 'chest pain' reported by COVID-19 patients who attended the ED of Bernhoven Hospital, the Netherlands from 4 through 30 March 2020.ResultsWe included 497 COVID-19 patients, of whom 83 (17%) reported chest pain upon presentation to the ED. Chest pain characteristics were: present since disease onset (88%), retrosternal location (43%), experienced as compressing/pressure pain (61%), no radiation (61%) and linked to heavy coughing (39%). Patients who reported chest pain were younger than those without chest pain (61 vs 73 years; p < 0.001). Patients with syncope were older (75 vs 72 years; p = 0.017), had a shorter duration of symptoms (5 vs 7 days; p < 0.001) and reported fewer respiratory complaints (68% vs 90%; p < 0.001) than those without syncope. Patients with new-onset atrial arrhythmias presented with a shorter duration of symptoms (5 vs 7 days; p = 0.013), experienced fewer respiratory complaints (72% vs 89%; p = 0.012) and more frequently had a history of cardiovascular disease (79% vs 50%; p = 0.003) than patients who presented without arrythmias.ConclusionChest pain and other cardiac symptoms were frequently observed in COVID-19 patients. Treating physicians should be aware that chest pain, arrhythmias and syncope can be presenting symptoms of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC9589604 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has altered behaviors in the general population, as well as processes in the healthcare industry. Patients may be afraid to pursue care in the emergency department (ED) due to perceived risk of infection. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of COVID-19 on ED metrics.MethodsAt one metropolitan trauma center ED, we conducted a review of all visits from February to May in 2020 and compared findings with the same months from 2019.ResultsA total of 34,213 ED visits occurred during the study periods (18,471 in 2019 and 15,742 in 2020), with a decline in patient visits occurring after state emergency declarations. In 2020, patients were less likely to be female and more likely to arrive by ambulance. Diagnoses in the musculoskeletal, neurologic, and genitourinary categories occurred in lower proportions in 2020; toxicology, psychiatry, and infectious diseases occurred in higher proportions. In contrast to other insurance categories, Medicare patients comprised a larger share of ED visits in 2020 compared to 2019.DiscussionDespite relatively low local prevalence of COVID-19, we report decreases in ED volume for some medical diagnosis categories. A volume rebound occurred in May 2020, but did not reach 2019 levels. Public health officials should encourage local populations to seek emergency care when concerned, and could consider programs to provide transportation. Patients should continue to protect themselves with social distancing and masks.
| S-EPMC7481071 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) might present neurological symptoms. We aimed to evaluate the frequency of them at the moment of emergency department (ED) visit and their impact in the prognosis.MethodsRetrospective cohort study including all consecutive hospitalized cases between March 8th and April 11th, 2020. Covid-19 diagnosis was confirmed by polymerase chain reaction test and/or serology. We compared, in patients with and without neurological symptoms on admission, demographic, clinical presentation, and frequency and type of abnormal laboratory values. We analyzed the variables that were associated with in-hospital all-cause mortality by Cox-regression log-rank test.ResultsWe included 576 hospitalized patients, 250 (43.3%) female, aged 67.2 years. At the moment of ED visit, 320 (55.6%) described neurological symptoms, including anosmia (146, 25.3%), myalgia (139, 24.1%), headache (137, 23.8%), and altered mental status (98, 17.0%). Neurological symptoms started the first symptomatic day in 198 (54.2%) cases. Patients with neurological symptoms presented later to the ED (7.9 versus. 6.6 days, p = .019). Only four (0.6%) cases had no typical Covid-19 general symptoms, and only six (1.9%) had a normal laboratory results, for a sensitivity of 98.7% (95% confidence interval (CI): 96.6%-99.6%) and 98.1% (95% CI: 95.7%-99.2%), respectively. In the multivariate Cox-regression of mortality predictors, anosmia (HR: 0.358, 95%CI: 0.140-0.916) and altered mental status (HR: 1.867, 95%CI: 1.162-3.001) were significant.ConclusionNeurological symptoms were the most frequent extrapulmonary symptoms. They were present in half of the Covid-19 patients at the time of the ED visit. Anosmia on admission was an independent predictor of lower in-hospital mortality and altered mental status on admission predicted in-hospital mortality.
| S-EPMC7994975 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveProning has been shown to improve oxygenation and mortality in certain populations of intubated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Small observational analyses of COVID-19 patients suggest awake proning may lead to clinical improvement. Data on safety and efficacy is lacking. We sought to describe the effect of proning on oxygenation in nonintubated COVID-19 patients. We also evaluated feasibility, safety, and other physiological and clinical outcomes associated with this intervention.MethodsWe conducted a prospective, observational cohort study of nonintubated patients with COVID-19 who underwent proning per an Emergency Department (ED) clinical protocol. Patients with mild to moderate respiratory distress were included. We calculated change in oxygenation by comparing the oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (SpO2:FiO2) during the five minutes prior to proning and first 30 min of proning. We also captured data on respiratory rate, duration of proning, need for intubation, intensive care unit admission, survival to discharge.ResultsFifty-two patients were enrolled. Thirty were excluded for not meeting protocol inclusion criteria or missing baseline oxygenation data, leaving 22 for analysis. The SpO2:FiO2 ratio increased by a median of 5 (IQR: 0-15) in the post-proning period compared to the pre-proning period (median: 298 (IQR: 263-352) vs 295 (IQR: 276-350), p = 0.01). Respiratory rate did not change significantly between time periods. No immediate adverse events occurred during proning. Five patients (23%) were intubated within 48 h of admission.ConclusionEarly, awake proning may be feasible in select COVID-19 patients and was associated with improved oxygenation.
| S-EPMC7713606 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study objectiveTo describe characteristics and outcomes of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients with new supplemental oxygen requirements discharged from a large public urban emergency department (ED) with supplemental oxygen.MethodsThis observational case series describes the characteristics and outcomes of 360 consecutive COVID-19 patients with new supplemental oxygen requirements discharged from a large urban public ED between April 2020 and March 2021 with supplemental oxygen. Primary outcomes included 30-day survival and 30-day survival without unscheduled inpatient admission. Demographic and clinical data were collected through a structured chart review.ResultsAmong 360 patients with COVID-19 discharged from the ED with supplemental oxygen, 30-day survival was 97.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 95.3 to 98.9%; n=351), and 30-day survival without unscheduled admission was 81.1% (95% CI 76.7 to 85.0%; n=292). A sensitivity analysis incorporating worst-case-scenario for 12 patients without complete follow-up 30 days after index visit yields 30-day survival of 95.5% (95% CI 92.5 to 97.2%; n=343), and 30-day survival without unscheduled admission of 78.9% (95% CI 74.3 to 83.0%; n=284). Among study patients, 32.2% (n=116) had a nadir ED oxygen saturation of <90%, among these 30-day survival was 97.4% (95% CI 92.6 to 99.4%; n=113), and 30-day survival without unscheduled admission was 76.7% (95% CI 68.8 to 84.1%; n=89).ConclusionCOVID-19 patients with new supplemental oxygen requirements discharged from the ED had survival comparable to COVID-19 ED patients with mild exertional hypoxia treated with supplemental oxygen in other settings, and this held true when the analysis was restricted to patients with nadir ED index visit oxygen saturations <90%. Discharge of select COVID-19 patients with supplemental oxygen from the ED may provide a viable alternative to hospitalization, particularly when inpatient capacity is limited.
| S-EPMC9629795 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has extracted devastating tolls. Despite its pervasiveness, robust information on disease characteristics in the emergency department (ED) and how that information predicts clinical course remain limited.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of the first ED visit from SARS-CoV-2-positive patients in our health system, from February 21, 2020 to April 5, 2020. We reviewed each patient's ED visit(s) and included the first visit with symptoms consistent with COVID-19. We collected demographic, clinical, and treatment variables from electronic health records and structured manual chart review. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between patient characteristics and 2 primary outcomes: a critical outcome and hospitalization from index visit. Our critical outcome was defined as death or advanced respiratory support (high flow nasal cannula or greater) within 21 days.ResultsOf the first 1030 encounters, 801 met our inclusion criteria: 15% were over age 75 years, 47% were female, and 24% were non-Hispanic white. We found 161 (20%) had a critical outcome and 393 (49%) were hospitalized. Independent predictors of a critical outcome included a history of hypertension, abnormal chest x-ray, elevated neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, elevated blood urea nitrogen (BUN), measured fever, and abnormal respiratory vital signs (respiratory rate, oxygen saturation). Independent predictors of hospitalization included abnormal pulmonary auscultation, elevated BUN, measured fever, and abnormal respiratory vital signs.ConclusionsIn this large, diverse study of ED patients with COVID-19, we have identified numerous clinical characteristics that have independent associations with critical illness and hospitalization.
| S-EPMC8382683 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImproving the quality of cancer care and reducing preventable health system use are goals of increasing importance to health practitioners and policy makers. Emergency department (ED) visits are often cited as a source of preventable health system use, however, few studies have described the incidence of ED use by recently diagnosed cancer patients in population-based samples, and no study has addressed the full spectrum of cancer types.ObjectiveTo describe ED use by recently diagnosed cancer patients.MethodsCalifornia Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development data and the California Cancer Registry were used to describe ED use in the year after a cancer diagnosis (2009-2010). The incidence of ED use was tabulated by cancer type. Logistic regression and recycled predictions were used to examine ED use adjusting for confounding factors.ResultsMost ED visits (68%) occurred within 180 days of diagnosis. The incidence of ED use for all cancer types examined was 17% within 30 days, 35% within 180 days and 44% within 365 days of diagnosis. ED use varied by cancer type (5%-39% within 30 days of diagnosis; 14% -62% within 180 days; and 22%-69% within 365 days). Patterns of ED use by cancer type remained similar after accounting for demographic and socioeconomic factors.LimitationsThose common to administrative and registry datasets. Specifically, we were unable to account for ED visits in relation to cancer treatment dates and comorbid conditions.ConclusionsCancer patients use EDs at higher rates than previously reported, with considerable variability by cancer type. Future research should examine reasons for ED visits by cancer type and identify predictors of ED use, including treatment and comorbid conditions.
| S-EPMC7673305 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 may lead to severe disease, requiring intensive care treatment and challenging the capacity of health care systems. The aim of this study was to compare the ability of commonly used scoring systems for sepsis and pneumonia to predict severe COVID-19 in the emergency department.MethodsProspective, observational, single centre study in a secondary/tertiary care hospital in Oslo, Norway. Patients were assessed upon hospital admission using the following scoring systems; quick Sequential Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria (SIRS), National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), CURB-65 and Pneumonia Severity index (PSI). The ratio of arterial oxygen tension to inspiratory oxygen fraction (P/F-ratio) was also calculated. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) for each scoring system was calculated, along with sensitivity and specificity for the most commonly used cut-offs. Severe disease was defined as death or treatment in ICU within 14 days.Results38 of 175 study participants developed severe disease, 13 (7%) died and 29 (17%) had a stay at an intensive care unit (ICU). NEWS2 displayed an AUROC of 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.72-0.88), CURB-65 0.75 (0.65-0.84), PSI 0.75 (0.65-0.84), SIRS 0.70 (0.61-0.80) and qSOFA 0.70 (0.61-0.79). NEWS2 was significantly better than SIRS and qSOFA in predicating severe disease, and with a cut-off of5 points, had a sensitivity and specificity of 82% and 60%, respectively.ConclusionNEWS2 predicted severe COVID-19 disease more accurately than SIRS and qSOFA, but not significantly better than CURB65 and PSI. NEWS2 may be a useful screening tool in evaluating COVID-19 patients during hospital admission.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04345536. (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04345536).
| S-EPMC7577659 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8652434 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRapid identification of patients with high suspicion of COVID-19 will become a challenge with the co-circulation of multiple respiratory viruses (RVs). We have identified clinical or biological characteristics to help distinguish SARS-CoV-2 from other RVs.MethodsWe used a prospective cohort including all consecutive patients admitted through the emergency department's (ED) and presenting respiratory symptoms from November 2019 to April 2020. Patients were tested for RV using multiplex polymerase chain reaction (mPCR) and SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR.Results203/508 patients were positive for an RV during the non-SARS-CoV-2 epidemic period (November to February), and 268/596 patients were SARS-CoV-2 positive during the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic (March to April). Younger age, male gender, fever, absence of expectoration and absence of chronic lung disease were statistically associated with SARS-CoV-2 detection. Combining these variables allowed for the distinguishing of SARS-CoV-2 infections with 83, 65, 75 and 76% sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV, respectively.ConclusionPatients' characteristics associated with a positive PCR are common between SARS-CoV-2 and other RVs, but a simple discrimination of strong SARS-CoV-2 suspicion with a limited set of clinical features seems possible. Such scoring could be useful but has to be prospectively evaluated and will not eliminate the need for rapid PCR assays.
| S-EPMC7714208 | biostudies-literature