Paediatric NHS 111 Clinical Assessment Services pilot: an observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility and impact of having paediatric clinicians working in the Clinical Assessment Services (CAS) within NHS 111, a national telephone advice service. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Six NHS 111 providers across England with CAS where volunteer paediatric clinicians (doctors and advanced nurse practitioners (ANPs)) worked between May and December 2020. A data reporting framework was used to compare the outcomes of calls taken by paediatric vs non-paediatric clinicians. PATIENTS: Under 16-year-olds prompting calls to NHS 111 over the study period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The disposition (final outcome of calls) taken by paediatric versus non-paediatric clinicians, paediatric clinicians' and patient experience. RESULTS: 70 paediatric clinicians (66 doctors and 4 ANPs) worked flexible shifts in six NHS 111 providers' CAS over the study period: 2535 calls for under 16-year-olds were taken by paediatric clinicians and 137 008 by non-paediatric clinicians. Overall, disposition rates differed significantly between the calls taken by paediatric versus (vs) non-paediatric clinicians: 69% vs 43% were advised on self-care only, 13% vs 18% to attend emergency departments (EDs), 13% vs 29% to attend primary care, 1% vs 4% to receive an urgent ambulance call out and 4% vs 6% referred to another health service, respectively. When compared with recent (all age) national whole data sets, the feedback from calls taken by paediatricians noted a greater proportion of patients/carers reporting that their problem was fully resolved (92% vs 27%). CONCLUSIONS: Introducing paediatric specialists into NHS 111 CAS is likely to increase self-care dispositions, and reduce onward referrals to primary care, ED and ambulances. Future work will evaluate the impact of a national paediatric clinical assessment service to which specific case types are streamed.

Evaluating the Sensitivity and Specificity of Siemens Clinitest Lateral Flow Test and the Simple AMplification-Based Assay (SAMBA)-2 PCR Test for SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Introduction Accurate point-of-care testing for SARS-CoV-2 could quickly identify which patients need to be isolated and improve flow for patients being admitted as an emergency to the hospital. We evaluated two diagnostic tests with shorter turnaround times, the Siemens Clinitest Lateral Flow (Siemens Healthineers AG, Erlangen, Germany) and the Simple AMplification-Based Assay (SAMBA)-2 PCR test against a standard laboratory PCR test. Methods We conducted a prospective diagnostic cohort study in a single English emergency department. Adult participants underwent three swabs: the Siemens Clinitest Lateral Flow Test, the SAMBA-2 and a standard laboratory PCR test. Results A total of 212 participants were recruited. The sensitivity and specificity of the Siemens Clinitest Lateral Flow Test against the laboratory PCR test was 55.6% (95% CI 30.8-78.5) and 100% (95% CI 98.1-100) respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the SAMBA-2 PCR test against the laboratory PCR test was 60.0% (95% CI 32.3-83.7) and 100% (95% CI 97.9-100) respectively. Conclusion Neither the Siemens Clinitest Lateral Flow Test nor the SAMBA-2 PCR test demonstrated sufficient sensitivity to rule out active SARS-CoV-2 infection. Both tests demonstrated high specificity.

Combined Point-of-Care Nucleic Acid and Antibody Testing for SARS-CoV-2 following Emergence of D614G Spike Variant.

Rapid COVID-19 diagnosis in the hospital is essential, although this is complicated by 30%-50% of nose/throat swabs being negative by SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). Furthermore, the D614G spike mutant dominates the pandemic and it is unclear how serological tests designed to detect anti-spike antibodies perform against this variant. We assess the diagnostic accuracy of combined rapid antibody point of care (POC) and nucleic acid assays for suspected COVID-19 disease due to either wild-type or the D614G spike mutant SARS-CoV-2. The overall detection rate for COVID-19 is 79.2% (95% CI 57.8-92.9) by rapid NAAT alone. The combined point of care antibody test and rapid NAAT is not affected by D614G and results in very high sensitivity for COVID-19 diagnosis with very high specificity.

The Attend Study: A Retrospective Observational Study of Emergency Department Attendances During the Early Stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic was associated with a large reduction in the number of attendances at emergency departments (EDs) in March 2020 in the United Kingdom (UK). We sought to identify which patient groups attended EDs least. METHODS: Single-centre before and after study. We used routine administrative data from March 2020 and compared this to a composite control of March 2019 and February 2020.  Results: Mean daily attendance fell by 30% from 342 patients per day in the composite control months to 242 patients per day in March 2020. Reductions in attendance were seen in almost all patient groups but were greatest in patients with injuries, those referred by another clinician, those arriving at the weekend, and in patients who received no investigations. Multivariate analysis revealed that the proportion of patients who were admitted to hospital fell, despite the patients being sicker, older, needing more investigations, and more likely to arrive by ambulance. DISCUSSION: The reduction in ED attendances seen in the early phases of the UK pandemic occurred in all patient groups, but was greatest in the lower acuity patients. Reasons for this are complex and likely to be multifactorial.