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.