Dataset Information

Clinical and operational impact of rapid point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 detection in an emergency department.

ABSTRACT:

Study objective

Rapid point-of-care (POC) SARS-CoV-2 detection with Abbott ID NOW™ COVID-19 test has been implemented in our Emergency Department (ED) for several months. We aimed to evaluate the operational impact and potential benefits of this innovative clinical pathway.

Methods

We conducted a prospective, descriptive, interventional, non-randomized study, before-after trial with the comparison of patient cohorts from two consecutive periods of seven weeks (observational pre-POC period vs interventional POC period).

Results

In 2020, throughout weeks 37 to 50, 3333 patients were assessed for eligibility and among them 331 (9.9%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infections. Among the included patients, 136 (9.2%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the pre-POC period and 195 (10.5%) in the POC period. Among positive patients for SARS-CoV-2 related infection in-hospital mortality rate was similar between the two groups but the hospitalization rate was higher in the POC group (81.6% vs. 65.4%; p < 0.001). More patients in the POC period were able to leave the ED within 6 h. We examined rates of antibiotic, anticoagulant, and corticosteroid prescriptions among patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 in the ED. Only the rate of prescribed anticoagulants was found to be higher in the POC period (40% vs. 24.2%; p < 0.003).

Conclusion

We demonstrated that COVID-19 point-of-care testing speeds up clinical decision-making, improving use of recommended treatments for COVID-19, such as anticoagulants. Moreover, it improves the boarding time and significantly shortened the length of stay in the ED for patients requiring outpatient care.

SUBMITTER: Gerlier C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8479552 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background. Many proponents for healthcare reform suggest increased cost-sharing by patients as a method to reduce overall expenditures. Prior studies on the effects of co-payments for ED visits have generally not been directed toward understanding patient attitudes/behavior at point of care. Objectives. We conducted a survey at point of care to test our hypothesis that a significant number of patients with urgent chief complaints might have avoided the ED if asked to provide a co-payment. Methods. Cross-sectional study design. Stable, oriented, consenting patients at an inner-city, academic ED were consecutively enrolled at hours in which trained research associates were available to assist with data collection. Enrolled patients completed a written survey providing demographic/chief complaint information, and then were asked whether 13 interval amounts of co-payment ranging from 0 to >500 would have impacted their decision to visit the ED. Categorical data are presented as frequency of occurrence and analyzed by chi-square; continuous data presented as means ± standard deviation, analyzed by t-tests. ORs and 95% confidence intervals provided. Primary outcome parameter was the % of patients who would have avoided the ED if asked to pay any co-payment for several urgent chief complaints: chest pain, SOB, and abdominal pain. Results. A total of 581 patients were enrolled; 63.1% female, mean age 42.4 ± 15.1 years, 65% Hispanic, 71.2% income less than 20,000, 28.6% less than high school graduate, 81.3% had primary care physician, 57.6% had 2 or more ED visits/past year. Overall, 30.2% of patients chose 0 as the maximum they would have been willing to pay if it was required to be seen in the ED. 16/58 (28%; 95% CI [18-40%]) of chest pain patients, 9/43 (20.9%; 95% CI [11-35%]) of SOB patients, and 24/127 (26.8%; 95% CI [13-27%]) of abdominal pain patients would have been unwilling to pay a co-pay. Patients with income >20,000 were more willing to pay a co-payment (OR = 2.55; 95% CI [1.59-4.10]). No significant relationship was identified between willingness to pay for: gender, race, education, established primary care provider, and frequency of ED visits. Conclusion. Overall, 30.2% of our patients would not have accepted a co-pay in order to be seen, including more than 20% of the patients with chest pain, shortness of breath, and abdominal pain respectively.

Project description:In December 2019, a severe acute respiratory syndrome caused by SARS-CoV-2 spread rapidly worldwide. Portable nucleic acid tests of SARS-CoV-2 are critically important for diagnostics. In this study, we used an isothermal amplification method—Multienzyme Isothermal Rapid Amplification (MIRA)—for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2. We designed the primers and probes in ORF1ab and N gene of SARS-CoV-2. The amplicons could be monitored by lateral flow dipsticks (LFDs). The reaction temperature, time, concentrations of primers and probes, and working volume were optimized. Four commercial swab collection buffers were used to test the amplification efficacy of our assay without RNA extraction. Our assay was able to amplify duplex targets of SARS-CoV-2 in one single reaction using one-step RT-MIRA. The assay worked well in a low volume of 10 μl at 38°C for 20 min. Using three collection buffers without guanidinium, our assay was able to amplify efficaciously without RNA extraction. The 95% limit of detection (LoD) of the RT-MIRA assay was 49.5 (95% CI, 46.8–52.7) copies/ml for ORF1ab gene and 48.8 (95% CI, 46.5–52.6) copies/ml for N gene. There is no cross-reaction with other human respiratory pathogens, such as SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, influenza A virus, influenza B virus, human adenovirus, respiratory syncytial virus, human parainfluenza virus, and coronavirus 229E in our assay. The precision evaluation revealed that the C50−20% to C50+20% range bounds the C5–C95 interval. This assay also showed high anti-interference ability. The extraction-free RT-MIRA and qPCR detection results of 243 nucleic acid specimens from suspected patients or national references showed a 100.0% (95% confidence interval, 94.2%–100.0%) positive predictive value and a 100.0% (95% confidence interval, 92.7%–100.0%) negative predictive value. Compared with qPCR, the kappa value of the two assays was 1.00 (P < 0.0001). In conclusion, we provide a portable and visualized method for detection of SARS-CoV-2 without RNA extraction, allowing its application in SARS-CoV-2 on-site detection.