US and Dutch Perspectives on the Use of COVID-19 Clinical Prediction Models: Findings from a Qualitative Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical prediction models (CPMs) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may support clinical decision making, treatment, and communication. However, attitudes about using CPMs for COVID-19 decision making are unknown. METHODS: Online focus groups and interviews were conducted among health care providers, survivors of COVID-19, and surrogates (i.e., loved ones/surrogate decision makers) in the United States and the Netherlands. Semistructured questions explored experiences about clinical decision making in COVID-19 care and facilitators and barriers for implementing CPMs. RESULTS: In the United States, we conducted 4 online focus groups with 1) providers and 2) surrogates and survivors of COVID-19 between January 2021 and July 2021. In the Netherlands, we conducted 3 focus groups and 4 individual interviews with 1) providers and 2) surrogates and survivors of COVID-19 between May 2021 and July 2021. Providers expressed concern about CPM validity and the belief that patients may interpret CPM predictions as absolute. They described CPMs as potentially useful for resource allocation, triaging, education, and research. Several surrogates and people who had COVID-19 were not given prognostic estimates but believed this information would have supported and influenced their decision making. A limited number of participants felt the data would not have applied to them and that they or their loved ones may not have survived, as poor prognosis may have suggested withdrawal of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Many providers had reservations about using CPMs for people with COVID-19 due to concerns about CPM validity and patient-level interpretation of the outcome predictions. However, several people who survived COVID-19 and their surrogates indicated that they would have found this information useful for decision making. Therefore, information provision may be needed to improve provider-level comfort and patient and surrogate understanding of CPMs. HIGHLIGHTS: While clinical prediction models (CPMs) may provide an objective means of assessing COVID-19 prognosis, provider concerns about CPM validity and the interpretation of CPM predictions may limit their clinical use.Providers felt that CPMs may be most useful for resource allocation, triage, research, or educational purposes for COVID-19.Several survivors of COVID-19 and their surrogates felt that CPMs would have been informative and may have aided them in making COVID-19 treatment decisions, while others felt the data would not have applied to them.

COVID outcome prediction in the emergency department (COPE): using retrospective Dutch hospital data to develop simple and valid models for predicting mortality and need for intensive care unit admission in patients who present at the emergency department with suspected COVID-19

ObjectivesDevelop simple and valid models for predicting mortality and need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission in patients who present at the emergency department (ED) with suspected COVID-19.DesignRetrospective.SettingSecondary care in four large Dutch hospitals.ParticipantsPatients who presented at the ED and were admitted to hospital with suspected COVID-19. We used 5831 first-wave patients who presented between March and August 2020 for model development and 3252 second-wave patients who presented between September and December 2020 for model validation.Outcome measuresWe developed separate logistic regression models for in-hospital death and for need for ICU admission, both within 28 days after hospital admission. Based on prior literature, we considered quickly and objectively obtainable patient characteristics, vital parameters and blood test values as predictors. We assessed model performance by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and by calibration plots.ResultsOf 5831 first-wave patients, 629 (10.8%) died within 28 days after admission. ICU admission was fully recorded for 2633 first-wave patients in 2 hospitals, with 214 (8.1%) ICU admissions within 28 days. A simple model—COVID outcome prediction in the emergency department (COPE)—with age, respiratory rate, C reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, albumin and urea captured most of the ability to predict death. COPE was well calibrated and showed good discrimination for mortality in second-wave patients (AUC in four hospitals: 0.82 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.86);0.82 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.90);0.79 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.88);0.83 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.86)). COPE was also able to identify patients at high risk of needing ICU admission in second-wave patients (AUC in two hospitals: 0.84 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.90);0.81 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.95)).ConclusionsCOPE is a simple tool that is well able to predict mortality and need for ICU admission in patients who present to the ED with suspected COVID-19 and may help patients and doctors in decision making.

Can vital signs recorded in patients' homes aid decision making in emergency care? A Scoping Review.

AIM: Use of tele-health programs and wearable sensors that allow patients to monitor their own vital signs have been expanded in response to COVID-19. We aimed to explore the utility of patient-held data during presentation as medical emergencies. METHODS: We undertook a systematic scoping review of two groups of studies: studies using non-invasive vital sign monitoring in patients with chronic diseases aimed at preventing unscheduled reviews in primary care, hospitalization or emergency department visits and studies using vital sign measurements from wearable sensors for decision making by clinicians on presentation of these patients as emergencies. Only studies that described a comparator or control group were included. Studies limited to inpatient use of devices were excluded. RESULTS: The initial search resulted in 896 references for screening, nine more studies were identified through searches of references. 26 studies fulfilled inclusion and exclusion criteria and were further analyzed. The majority of studies were from telehealth programs of patients with congestive heart failure or Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. There was limited evidence that patient held data is currently used to risk-stratify the admission or discharge process for medical emergencies. Studies that showed impact on mortality or hospital admission rates measured vital signs at least daily. We identified no interventional study using commercially available sensors in watches or smart phones. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to determine utility of patient held monitoring devices to guide management of acute medical emergencies at the patients' home, on presentation to hospital and after discharge back to the community.