The Response of Emergency Departments (EDs) to the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Experience of 5 EDs in a Paris-Based Academic Hospital Trust.

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has imposed unforeseen and unprecedented constraints on emergency departments (EDs). In this study, we detail the organizational and managerial tools recently implemented among 5 academic EDs in a French region particularly affected by COVID-19 and analyze how EDs responded to the COVID-19-related disease burden during different phases of the epidemic. Initially, they focused on the early detection of suspected cases by identifying 3 predominant COVID-19 syndromes. During this diagnostic process, patients were placed in respiratory isolation (facial mask before triage) and droplet isolation (ED rooms). A 3-level strategy for triage, clinical pathways in the EDs, and the organization of hospital spaces was based on the real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) COVID-19 positivity rate, with ED strategies adapted to the exigencies of each level. This crisis demonstrated hospitals' adaptability and capacity to mobilize in the face of new risks, with hospitals and EDs coordinating their management to reallocate resources, optimize interoperability, and rethink patient pathways. This report on their processes may assist hospitals and EDs in areas currently spared by the new variants.

Feasibility of large-scale eOSCES: the simultaneous evaluation of 500 medical students during a mock examination.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led health schools to cancel many on-site training and exams. Teachers were looking for the best option to carry out online OSCEs, and Zoom was the obvious choice since many schools have used it to pursue education purposes. METHODS: We conducted a feasibility study during the 2020-2021 college year divided into six pilot phases and the large-scale eOSCEs on Zoom on June 30th, 2021. We developed a specific application allowing us to mass create Zoom meetings and built an entire organization, including a technical support system (an SOS room and catching-up rooms) and teachers' training sessions. We assessed satisfaction via an online survey. RESULTS: On June 30th, 531/794 fifth-year medical students (67%) participated in a large-scale mock exam distributed in 135 Zoom meeting rooms with the mobilization of 298 teachers who either participated in the Zoom meetings as standardized patients (N =135, 45%) or examiners (N =135, 45%) or as supervisors in the catching-up rooms (N =16, 6%) or the SOS room (N =12, 4%). In addition, 32/270 teachers (12%) experienced difficulties connecting to their Zoom meetings and sought the help of an SOS room member. Furthermore, 40/531 students (7%) were either late to their station or had technical difficulties and declared those issues online and were welcomed in one of the catching-up rooms to perform their eOSCE stations. Additionally, 518/531 students (98%) completed the entire circuit of three stations, and 225/531 students (42%) answered the online survey. Among them, 194/225 (86%) found eOSCES helpful for training and expressed their satisfaction with this experience. CONCLUSION: Organizing large-scale eOSCEs on Zoom is feasible with the appropriate tools. In addition, eOCSEs should be considered complementary to on-site OSCEs and to train medical students in telemedicine.

Added value of rapid respiratory syndromic testing at point of care versus central laboratory testing: a controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Virus-associated respiratory infections are in the spotlight with the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and the expanding use of multiplex PCR (mPCR). The impact of molecular testing as a point-of-care test (POCT) in the emergency department (ED) is still unclear. OBJECTIVES: To compare the impact of a syndromic test performed in the ED as a POCT and in the central laboratory on length of stay (LOS), antibiotic use and single-room assignment. METHODS: From 19 November 2019 to 9 March 2020, adults with acute respiratory illness seeking care in the ED of a large hospital were enrolled, with mPCR performed with a weekly alternation in the ED as a POCT (week A) or in the central laboratory (week B). RESULTS: 474 patients were analysed: 275 during A weeks and 199 during B weeks. Patient characteristics were similar. The hospital LOS (median 7 days during week A versus 7 days during week B, P = 0.29), the proportion of patients with ED-LOS <1 day (63% versus 60%, P = 0.57) and ED antibiotic prescription (59% versus 58%, P = 0.92) were not significantly different. Patients in the POCT arm were more frequently assigned a single room when having a positive PCR for influenza, respiratory syncytial virus and metapneumovirus [52/70 (74%) versus 19/38 (50%) in the central testing arm, P = 0.012]. CONCLUSIONS: Syndromic testing performed in the ED compared with the central laboratory failed to reduce the LOS or antibiotic consumption in patients with acute respiratory illness, but was associated with an increased single-room assignment among patients in whom a significant respiratory pathogen was detected.

Viral epidemiology and SARS-CoV-2 co-infections with other respiratory viruses during the first COVID-19 wave in Paris, France.

OBJECTIVES: Our work assessed the prevalence of co-infections in patients with SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: All patients hospitalized in a Parisian hospital during the first wave of COVID-19 were tested by multiplex PCR if they presented ILI symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 806 patients (21%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2, 755 (20%) were positive for other respiratory viruses. Among the SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, 49 (6%) had viral co-infections. They presented similar age, symptoms, except for fever (P = .013) and headaches (P = .048), than single SARS-CoV-2 infections. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2-infected patients presenting viral co-infections had similar clinical characteristics and prognosis than patients solely infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Correction: Characteristics associated with COVID-19 or other respiratory viruses' infections at a single-center emergency department.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243261.].

Characteristics associated with COVID-19 or other respiratory viruses' infections at a single-center emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Rapid identification of patients with high suspicion of COVID-19 will become a challenge with the co-circulation of multiple respiratory viruses (RVs). We have identified clinical or biological characteristics to help distinguish SARS-CoV-2 from other RVs. METHODS: We used a prospective cohort including all consecutive patients admitted through the emergency department's (ED) and presenting respiratory symptoms from November 2019 to April 2020. Patients were tested for RV using multiplex polymerase chain reaction (mPCR) and SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. RESULTS: 203/508 patients were positive for an RV during the non-SARS-CoV-2 epidemic period (November to February), and 268/596 patients were SARS-CoV-2 positive during the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic (March to April). Younger age, male gender, fever, absence of expectoration and absence of chronic lung disease were statistically associated with SARS-CoV-2 detection. Combining these variables allowed for the distinguishing of SARS-CoV-2 infections with 83, 65, 75 and 76% sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients' characteristics associated with a positive PCR are common between SARS-CoV-2 and other RVs, but a simple discrimination of strong SARS-CoV-2 suspicion with a limited set of clinical features seems possible. Such scoring could be useful but has to be prospectively evaluated and will not eliminate the need for rapid PCR assays.

Evaluation of the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel, the First Rapid Multiplex PCR Commercial Assay for SARS-CoV-2 Detection.

In the race to contain severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), efficient detection and triage of infected patients must rely on rapid and reliable testing. In this work, we performed the first evaluation of the QIAstat-Dx respiratory SARS-CoV-2 panel (QIAstat-SARS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection. This assay is the first rapid multiplex PCR (mPCR) assay, including SARS-CoV-2 detection, and is fully compatible with a non-PCR-trained laboratory or point-of-care (PoC) testing. This evaluation was performed using 69 primary clinical samples (66 nasopharyngeal swabs [NPS], 1 bronchoalveolar lavage fluid sample [BAL], 1 tracheal aspirate sample, and 1 bronchial aspirate sample) comparing SARS-CoV-2 detection with the currently WHO-recommended reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) (WHO-RT-PCR) workflow. Additionally, a comparative limit of detection (LoD) assessment was performed for QIAstat-SARS and WHO-RT-PCR using a quantified clinical sample. Compatibility of sample pretreatment for viral neutralization or viscous samples with the QIAstat-SARS system were also tested. The QIAstat-Dx respiratory SARS-CoV-2 panel demonstrated a sensitivity comparable to that of the WHO-recommended assay with a limit of detection at 1,000 copies/ml. The overall percent agreement between QIAstat-Dx SARS and WHO-RT-PCR on 69 clinical samples was 97% with a sensitivity of 100% (40/40) and specificity at 93% (27/29). No cross-reaction was encountered for any other respiratory viruses or bacteria included in the panel. The QIAstat-SARS rapid multiplex PCR panel provides a highly sensitive, robust, and accurate assay for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2. This assay allows rapid decisions even in non-PCR-trained laboratory or point-of-care testing, allowing innovative organization.

Analysis of Emergency Department Visits and Hospital Activity during Influenza Season, COVID-19 Epidemic, and Lockdown Periods in View of Managing a Future Disaster Risk: A Multicenter Observational Study.

ED-visits and through-ED admissions to medical/surgical wards (MSW) and intensive care unit (ICU) during influenza, COVID-19 and lockdown periods were evaluated in a four-hospital prospective observational study from November 2018 to March 2020. ED visit characteristics and main diagnostic categories were assessed. Analysis of 368,262 ED-visits highlighted a significantly increasing trend in ED-visits during influenza followed by a significantly decreasing trend after lockdown. For MSW-admissions, a pattern of growth during influenza was followed by a fall that began during COVID-19 pandemic and intensified during the lockdown. For ICU-admissions, a significant rise during the COVID-19 pandemic was followed by diminution during the lockdown period. During lockdown, significantly diminishing trends were shown for all diagnostic categories (between -40.8% and -73.6%), except influenza-like illness/COVID cases (+31.6%), Pulmonary embolism/deep vein thrombosis (+33.5%) and frequent users (+188.0%). The present study confirms an increase in demand during the influenza epidemic and during the initial phase of the COVID-19 epidemic, but a drop in activity during the lockdown, mainly related to non-COVID conditions. Syndromic surveillance of ILI cases in ED is a tool for monitoring influenza and COVID-19, and it can predict ED activity and the need for MSW and ICU beds.

COVID-19 Preparedness Among Emergency Departments: A Cross-Sectional Study in France.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate hospital and emergency department (ED) preparedness in France facing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rapid growth epidemic-phase, and to determine the link between preparedness and responsiveness. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, from March 7 to March 11, 2020, all heads of ED departments in France were contacted to answer an electronic survey, including 23 questions. Quality, Organization, Training, Resources, Management, Interoperability, and Responsiveness were evaluated by calculating scores (10 points). Multivariate analysis of variance was used to compare scores. Spearman's correlation coefficient and multifaceted regression analysis were performed between Responsiveness and dimensions scores. RESULTS: A total of 287 of 636 French EDs were included (45.1%). Calculated scores showed (median): Quality 5.38; Organization 6.4; Training 4.6; Resources 4.13; Management 2.38; Interoperability 4.0; Responsiveness 6.25; seasonal influenza score was 5. Significant differences between scores as a function of hospital and ED main characteristics were found. Furthermore, we found significant correlations (P < 0.01) between Responsiveness and all preparedness dimensions. Organization (adjusted-R2 0.2897), Management (aR2 0.321), and Interoperability (aR2 0.422) were significantly associated with Responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Preparedness in all its dimensions is low, indicating vulnerability. Preparedness and responsiveness face a certain and ongoing risk are close linked, and that Organizational, Management, and Interoperability dimensions are main determinants.

Feedback to Prepare EMS Teams to Manage Infected Patients with COVID-19: A Case Series.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), a new respiratory disease, is spreading globally. In France, Emergency Medical Service (EMS) teams are mobile medicalized resuscitation teams composed of emergency physician, nurse or anesthesiologist nurse, ambulance driver, and resident. Four types of clinical cases are presented here because they have led these EMS teams to change practices in their management of patients suspected of COVID-19 infection: cardiac arrest, hypoxia on an acute pneumonia, acute chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation with respiratory and hemodynamic disorders, and upper function disorders in a patient in a long-term care facility. The last case raised the question of COVID-19 cases with atypical forms in elderly subjects. Providers were contaminated during the management of these patients. These cases highlighted the need to review the way these EMS teams are responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, in view of heightening potential for early identification of suspicious cases, and of reinforcing the application of staff protection equipment to limit risk of contamination.