Dataset Information

Predicting Risk of Hospital Admission in Patients With Suspected COVID-19 in a Community Setting: Protocol for Development and Validation of a Multivariate Risk Prediction Tool.

ABSTRACT:

Background

During the pandemic, remote consultations have become the norm for assessing patients with signs and symptoms of COVID-19 to decrease the risk of transmission. This has intensified the clinical uncertainty already experienced by primary care clinicians when assessing patients with suspected COVID-19 and has prompted the use of risk prediction scores, such as the National Early Warning Score (NEWS2), to assess severity and guide treatment. However, the risk prediction tools available have not been validated in a community setting and are not designed to capture the idiosyncrasies of COVID-19 infection.

Objective

The objective of this study is to produce a multivariate risk prediction tool, RECAP-V1 (Remote COVID-19 Assessment in Primary Care), to support primary care clinicians in the identification of those patients with COVID-19 that are at higher risk of deterioration and facilitate the early escalation of their treatment with the aim of improving patient outcomes.

Methods

The study follows a prospective cohort observational design, whereby patients presenting in primary care with signs and symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 will be followed and their data linked to hospital outcomes (hospital admission and death). Data collection will be carried out by primary care clinicians in four arms: North West London Clinical Commissioning Groups (NWL CCGs), Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC), Covid Clinical Assessment Service (CCAS), and South East London CCGs (Doctaly platform). The study involves the use of an electronic template that incorporates a list of items (known as RECAP-V0) thought to be associated with disease outcome according to previous qualitative work. Data collected will be linked to patient outcomes in highly secure environments. We will then use multivariate logistic regression analyses for model development and validation.

Results

Recruitment of participants started in October 2020. Initially, only the NWL CCGs and RCGP RSC arms were active. As of March 24, 2021, we have recruited a combined sample of 3827 participants in these two arms. CCAS and Doctaly joined the study in February 2021, with CCAS starting the recruitment process on March 15, 2021. The first part of the analysis (RECAP-V1 model development) is planned to start in April 2021 using the first half of the NWL CCGs and RCGP RSC combined data set. Posteriorly, the model will be validated with the rest of the NWL CCGs and RCGP RSC data as well as the CCAS and Doctaly data sets. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee on May 27, 2020 (Integrated Research Application System number: 283024, Research Ethics Committee reference number: 20/NW/0266) and badged as National Institute of Health Research Urgent Public Health Study on October 14, 2020.

Conclusions

We believe the validated RECAP-V1 early warning score will be a valuable tool for the assessment of severity in patients with suspected COVID-19 in the community, either in face-to-face or remote consultations, and will facilitate the timely escalation of treatment with the potential to improve patient outcomes.

Trial registration

ISRCTN registry ISRCTN13953727; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13953727.

International registered report identifier (irrid)

DERR1-10.2196/29072.

SUBMITTER: Espinosa-Gonzalez AB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8153031 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo develop and externally validate a risk algorithm (QAdmissions) to estimate the risk of emergency hospital admission for patients aged 18-100 years in primary care.DesignProspective open cohort study using routinely collected data from general practice linked to hospital episode data during the 2-year study period 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2011.Setting405 general practices in England contributing to the national QResearch database to develop the algorithm. Two validation cohorts to validate the algorithm (1) 202 different QResearch practices and (2) 343 practices in England contributing to the Clinical Practice Research DataLink (CPRD). All general practices had data linked to hospital episode statistics at the individual patient level.ParticipantsWe studied 2 849 381 patients aged 18-100 years in the derivation cohort with over 4.6 million person-years of follow-up. 265 573 of these patients had one or more emergency admissions during follow-up. For the QResearch validation cohort, we identified 1 340 622 patients aged 18-100 years with over 2.2 million person-years of follow-up. Of these patients, 132 723 had one or more emergency admissions during follow-up. The CPRD cohort included 2 475 360 patients aged 18-100 years with over 3.8 million person-years of follow-up. 234 204 of these patients had one or more emergency admissions during follow-up. We excluded patients without a valid NHS number and a valid Townsend score.EndpointFirst (ie, incident) emergency admission to hospital in the next 2 years as recorded on the linked hospital episodes records.Risk factorsCandidate variables recorded on the general practitioner computer system including (1) demographic variables (age, sex, strategic health authority, Townsend deprivation score, ethnicity); (2) lifestyle variables (smoking, alcohol intake); (3) chronic diseases; (4) prescribed medication; (5) clinical values (body mass index, systolic blood pressure); (6) laboratory test results (haemoglobin, platelets, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, ratio of total serum cholesterol to high density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations, liver function tests). We also included the number of emergency admissions in the preceding year based on information recorded on the linked hospital episodes records.ResultsThe final QAdmissions algorithm incorporated 30 variables. When applied to the QResearch validation cohort, it explained 41% of the variation in women and 43% of that in men. The D statistic for QAdmissions was 1.7 in women and 1.8 in men. The receiver operating curve statistic was 0.78 for men and 0.77 for women. QAdmissions had good performance on all measures of discrimination and calibration. The positive predictive value for emergency admissions for the top tenth of patients at highest risk was 42% and the sensitivity was 39%. The results for the CPRD validation cohort were similar.ConclusionsThe QAdmissions model provided a valid measure of absolute risk of emergency admission to hospital in the general population as shown by its performance in a separate validation cohort. Further research is needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using these algorithms in primary care.

Project description:ObjectiveTo derive and validate a risk prediction algorithm to estimate hospital admission and mortality outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in adults.DesignPopulation based cohort study.Setting and participantsQResearch database, comprising 1205 general practices in England with linkage to covid-19 test results, Hospital Episode Statistics, and death registry data. 6.08 million adults aged 19-100 years were included in the derivation dataset and 2.17 million in the validation dataset. The derivation and first validation cohort period was 24 January 2020 to 30 April 2020. The second temporal validation cohort covered the period 1 May 2020 to 30 June 2020.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was time to death from covid-19, defined as death due to confirmed or suspected covid-19 as per the death certification or death occurring in a person with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the period 24 January to 30 April 2020. The secondary outcome was time to hospital admission with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Models were fitted in the derivation cohort to derive risk equations using a range of predictor variables. Performance, including measures of discrimination and calibration, was evaluated in each validation time period.Results4384 deaths from covid-19 occurred in the derivation cohort during follow-up and 1722 in the first validation cohort period and 621 in the second validation cohort period. The final risk algorithms included age, ethnicity, deprivation, body mass index, and a range of comorbidities. The algorithm had good calibration in the first validation cohort. For deaths from covid-19 in men, it explained 73.1% (95% confidence interval 71.9% to 74.3%) of the variation in time to death (R2); the D statistic was 3.37 (95% confidence interval 3.27 to 3.47), and Harrell's C was 0.928 (0.919 to 0.938). Similar results were obtained for women, for both outcomes, and in both time periods. In the top 5% of patients with the highest predicted risks of death, the sensitivity for identifying deaths within 97 days was 75.7%. People in the top 20% of predicted risk of death accounted for 94% of all deaths from covid-19.ConclusionThe QCOVID population based risk algorithm performed well, showing very high levels of discrimination for deaths and hospital admissions due to covid-19. The absolute risks presented, however, will change over time in line with the prevailing SARS-C0V-2 infection rate and the extent of social distancing measures in place, so they should be interpreted with caution. The model can be recalibrated for different time periods, however, and has the potential to be dynamically updated as the pandemic evolves.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the value of the inability to walk unassisted to predict hospital mortality in patients with suspected infection in a resource-limited setting. METHODS:This is a post hoc study of a prospective trial performed in rural Rwanda. Patients hospitalized because of a suspected acute infection and who were able to walk unassisted before this disease episode were included. At hospital presentation, the walking status was graded into: 1) can walk unassisted, 2) can walk assisted only, 3) cannot walk. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses and two-by-two tables were used to determine the sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values of the inability to walk unassisted to predict in-hospital death. RESULTS:One-thousand-sixty-nine patients were included. Two-hundred-one (18.8%), 315 (29.5%), and 553 (51.7%) subjects could walk unassisted, walk assisted or not walk, respectively. Their hospital mortality was 0%, 3.8% and 6.3%, respectively. The inability to walk unassisted had a low specificity (20%) but was 100% sensitive (CI95%, 90-100%) to predict in-hospital death (p = 0.00007). The value of the inability to walk unassisted to predict in-hospital mortality (AUC ROC, 0.636; CI95%, 0.564-0.707) was comparable to that of the qSOFA score (AUC ROC, 0.622; CI95% 0.524-0.728). Fifteen (7.5%), 34 (10.8%) and 167 (30.2%) patients who could walk unassisted, walk assisted or not walk presented with a qSOFA score count ?2 points, respectively (p<0.001). The inability to walk unassisted correlated with the presence of risk factors for death and danger signs, vital parameters, laboratory values, length of hospital stay, and costs of care. CONCLUSIONS:Our results suggest that the inability to walk unassisted at hospital admission is a highly sensitive predictor of in-hospital mortality in Rwandese patients with a suspected acute infection. The walking status at hospital admission appears to be a crude indicator of disease severity.

Project description:BackgroundIdentification of patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring hospital admission or at high-risk of in-hospital mortality is essential to guide patient triage and to provide timely treatment for higher risk hospitalized patients.MethodsA retrospective multi-centre (8 hospital) cohort at Beaumont Health, Michigan, USA, reporting on COVID-19 patients diagnosed between 1 March and 1 April 2020 was used for score validation. The COVID-19 Risk of Complications Score was automatically computed by the EHR. Multivariate logistic regression models were built to predict hospital admission and in-hospital mortality using individual variables constituting the score. Validation was performed using both discrimination and calibration.ResultsCompared to Green scores, Yellow Scores (OR: 5.72) and Red Scores (OR: 19.1) had significantly higher odds of admission (both p < .0001). Similarly, Yellow Scores (OR: 4.73) and Red Scores (OR: 13.3) had significantly higher odds of in-hospital mortality than Green Scores (both p < .0001). The cross-validated C-Statistics for the external validation cohort showed good discrimination for both hospital admission (C = 0.79 (95% CI: 0.77-0.81)) and in-hospital mortality (C = 0.75 (95% CI: 0.71-0.78)).ConclusionsThe COVID-19 Risk of Complications Score predicts the need for hospital admission and in-hospital mortality patients with COVID-19. Key points: Can an electronic health record generated risk score predict the risk of hospital admission and in-hospital mortality in patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? In both validation cohorts of 2,025 and 1,290 COVID-19, the cross-validated C-Statistics showed good discrimination for both hospital admission (C = 0.79 (95% CI: 0.77-0.81)) and in-hospital mortality (C = 0.75 (95% CI: 0.71-0.78)), respectively. The COVID-19 Risk of Complications Score may help predict the need for hospital admission if a patient contracts SARS-CoV-2 infection and in-hospital mortality for a hospitalized patient with COVID-19.

Project description:Given scientific and technological advancements, expectations of online medical education are increasing. However, there is no way to predict the effectiveness of online clinical clerkship curricula. To develop a prediction model, we conducted cross-sectional national surveys in Japan. Social media surveys were conducted among medical students in Japan during the periods May-June 2020 and February-March 2021. We used the former for the derivation dataset and the latter for the validation dataset. We asked students questions in three areas: 1) opportunities to learn from each educational approach (lectures, medical quizzes, assignments, oral presentations, observation of physicians' practice, clinical skills practice, participation in interprofessional meetings, and interactive discussions with physicians) in online clinical clerkships compared to face-to-face, 2) frequency of technical problems on online platforms, and 3) satisfaction and motivation as outcome measurements. We developed a scoring system based on a multivariate prediction model for satisfaction and motivation in a cross-sectional study of 1,671 medical students during the period May-June 2020. We externally validated this scoring with a cross-sectional study of 106 medical students during February-March 2021 and assessed its predictive performance. The final prediction models in the derivation dataset included eight variables (frequency of lectures, medical quizzes, oral presentations, observation of physicians' practice, clinical skills practice, participation in interprofessional meetings, interactive discussions with physicians, and technical problems). We applied the prediction models created using the derivation dataset to a validation dataset. The prediction performance values, based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, were 0.69 for satisfaction (sensitivity, 0.50; specificity, 0.89) and 0.75 for motivation (sensitivity, 0.71; specificity, 0.85). We developed a prediction model for the effectiveness of the online clinical clerkship curriculum, based on students' satisfaction and motivation. Our model will accurately predict and improve the online clinical clerkship curriculum effectiveness.

Project description:BACKGROUND: An accurate medication list at hospital admission is essential for the evaluation and further treatment of patients. The objective of this study was to describe the frequency, type and predictors of errors in medication history, and to evaluate the extent to which standard care corrects these errors. METHODS: A descriptive study was carried out in two medical wards in a Swedish hospital using Lund Integrated Medicines Management (LIMM)-based medication reconciliation. A clinical pharmacist identified each patient's most accurate pre-admission medication list by conducting a medication reconciliation process shortly after admission. This list was then compared with the patient's medication list in the hospital medical records. Addition or withdrawal of a drug or changes to the dose or dosage form in the hospital medication list were considered medication discrepancies. Medication discrepancies for which no clinical reason could be identified (unintentional changes) were considered medication history errors. RESULTS: The final study population comprised 670 of 818 eligible patients. At least one medication history error was identified by pharmacists conducting medication reconciliations for 313 of these patients (47%; 95% CI 43-51%). The most common medication error was an omitted drug, followed by a wrong dose. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that a higher number of drugs at admission (odds ratio [OR] per 1 drug increase = 1.10; 95% CI 1.06-1.14; p < 0.0001) and the patient living in their own home without any care services (OR = 1.58; 95% CI 1.02-2.45; p = 0.042) were predictors for medication history errors at admission. The results further indicated that standard care by non-pharmacist ward staff had partly corrected the errors in affected patients by four days after admission, but a considerable proportion of the errors made in the initial medication history at admission remained undetected by standard care (OR for medication errors detected by pharmacists' medication reconciliation carried out on days 4-11 compared to days 0-1 = 0.52; 95% CI 0.30-0.91; p=0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical pharmacists conducting LIMM-based medication reconciliations have a high potential for correcting errors in medication history for all patients. In an older Swedish population, those prescribed many drugs seem to benefit most from admission medication reconciliation.

Project description:BackgroundRisk prediction models have been developed to identify those at increased risk for emergency admissions, which could facilitate targeted interventions in primary care to prevent these events.ObjectiveSystematic review of validated risk prediction models for predicting emergency hospital admissions in community-dwelling adults.MethodsA systematic literature review and narrative analysis was conducted. Inclusion criteria were as follows;Populationcommunity-dwelling adults (aged 18 years and above); Risk: risk prediction models, not contingent on an index hospital admission, with a derivation and ?1 validation cohort;Primary outcomeemergency hospital admission (defined as unplanned overnight stay in hospital);Study designretrospective or prospective cohort studies.ResultsOf 18,983 records reviewed, 27 unique risk prediction models met the inclusion criteria. Eleven were developed in the United States, 11 in the United Kingdom, 3 in Italy, 1 in Spain, and 1 in Canada. Nine models were derived using self-report data, and the remainder (n=18) used routine administrative or clinical record data. Total study sample sizes ranged from 96 to 4.7 million participants. Predictor variables most frequently included in models were: (1) named medical diagnoses (n=23); (2) age (n=23); (3) prior emergency admission (n=22); and (4) sex (n=18). Eleven models included nonmedical factors, such as functional status and social supports. Regarding predictive accuracy, models developed using administrative or clinical record data tended to perform better than those developed using self-report data (c statistics 0.63-0.83 vs. 0.61-0.74, respectively). Six models reported c statistics of >0.8, indicating good performance. All 6 included variables for prior health care utilization, multimorbidity or polypharmacy, and named medical diagnoses or prescribed medications. Three predicted admissions regarded as being ambulatory care sensitive.ConclusionsThis study suggests that risk models developed using administrative or clinical record data tend to perform better. In applying a risk prediction model to a new population, careful consideration needs to be given to the purpose of its use and local factors.