Modified PRIEST score for identification of very low-risk COVID patients.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 transmission remains high around the world, and severe local outbreaks continue to occur. Prognostic tools may be useful in crisis conditions as risk stratification can help determine resource allocation. One published tool, the Pandemic Respiratory Infection Emergency System Triage Severity Score, seems particularly promising because of its predictive ability and ease of application at the bedside. We sought to understand the performance of a modified version of this score (mPRIEST) in our institution for identifying patients with a greater than minimal risk for adverse outcome (death or organ support) at 30 days after index visit. METHODS: Consecutive visits at two northern Manhattan EDs with a new diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 were identified between November and December of 2020. Demographic variables and clinical characteristics were obtained from chart review. Outcomes were obtained from chart review and follow-up phone call. RESULTS: Outcomes were available on 306 patients. The incidence of death or mechanical ventilation at 30 days for patients in patients with mPRIEST above the threshold value was 43/181 (23.8%), and for patients below 1/125 (0.8%). The sensitivity of the score for adverse outcome was 97.7% (95% CI: 93.3% to 100%). CONCLUSIONS: This data suggests the mPRIEST score, which can be calculated from clinical variables alone, has potential for use in EDs to identify patients at very low risk for adverse outcomes within 30 days of COVID diagnosis. This should be confirmed in larger formal validation studies in diverse settings.

Protecting the front line: a cross-sectional survey analysis of the occupational factors contributing to healthcare workers' infection and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with significant occupational stressors and challenges for front-line healthcare workers (HCWs), including COVID-19 exposure risk. Our study sought to assess factors contributing to HCW infection and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA. DESIGN: We conducted a cross sectional survey of HCWs (physicians, nurses, emergency medical technicians (EMTs), non-clinical staff) during May 2020. Participants completed a 42-item survey assessing disease transmission risk (clinical role, work environment, availability of personal protective equipment) and mental health (anxiety, depression and burn-out). SETTING: The questionnaire was disseminated over various social media platforms. 3083 respondents from 48 states, the District of Columbia and US territories accessed the survey. PARTICIPANTS: Using a convenience sample of HCWs who worked during the pandemic, 3083 respondents accessed the survey and 2040 participants completed at least 80% of the survey. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Prevalence of self-reported COVID-19 infection, in addition to burn-out, depression and anxiety symptoms. RESULTS: Participants were largely from the Northeast and Southern USA, with attending physicians (31.12%), nurses (26.80%), EMTs (13.04%) with emergency medicine department (38.30%) being the most common department and specialty represented. Twenty-nine per cent of respondents met the criteria for being a probable case due to reported COVID-19 symptoms or a positive test. HCWs in the emergency department (31.64%) were more likely to contract COVID-19 compared with HCWs in the ICU (23.17%) and inpatient settings (25.53%). HCWs that contracted COVID-19 also reported higher levels of depressive symptoms (mean diff.=0.31; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.47), anxiety symptoms (mean diff.=0.34; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.52) and burn-out (mean diff.=0.54; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.71). CONCLUSION: HCWs have experienced significant physical and psychological risk while working during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings highlight the urgent need for increased support for provider physical and mental health well-being.