Performance of three screening tools to predict COVID-19 positivity in emergency department patients.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 symptoms vary widely. This retrospective study assessed which of three clinical screening tools-a nursing triage screen (NTS), an ED review of systems (ROS) performed by physicians and physician assistants and a standardised ED attending (ie, consultant) physician COVID-19 probability assessment (PA)-best identified patients with COVID-19 on a subsequent reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) confirmation. METHODS: All patients admitted to Boston Medical Center from the ED between 27 April 2020 and 17 May 2020 were included. Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for each method. Logistic regression assessed each tool's performance. RESULTS: The attending physician PA had higher sensitivity (0.62, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.71) than the NTS (0.46, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.56) and higher specificity (0.76, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.80) than the NTS (0.71, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.75) and ED ROS (0.62, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.67). Categorisation as moderate or high probability on the ED physician PA was associated with the highest odds of having COVID-19 in regression analyses (adjusted OR=4.61, 95% CI 3.01 to 7.06). All methods had a low PPV (ranging from 0.26 for the ED ROS to 0.40 for the attending physician PA) and a similar NPV (0.84 for both the NTS and the ED ROS, and 0.89 for the attending physician PA). CONCLUSION: The ED attending PA had higher sensitivity and specificity than the other two methods, but none was accurate enough to replace a COVID-19 RT-PCR test in a clinical setting where transmission control is crucial. Therefore, we recommend universal COVID-19 testing prior to all admissions.

Racial equity in linkage to inpatient opioid use disorder treatment in patients that received emergency care.

OBJECTIVES: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a national epidemic, and Black and Hispanic patients are less likely to receive treatment when compared to white patients. In this study, race was used as a proxy to assess potential effects of racism on the referral process for OUD treatment. Our primary aim was to examine whether Black or Hispanic patients experienced increased barriers to inpatient OUD detoxification (detox) placement at a community-integrated, substance use disorder support program based in an emergency department (ED). Our secondary aim was to determine if Black and Hispanic patients were more likely to have >3 referrals. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a large urban safety-net hospital and included patients seen in the ED from July 2018 to September 2019 with ICD-10 codes for an opioid-related visit and who sought placement to inpatient detox. A generalized linear mixed model controlling for multiple visits, age, sex, insurance, time, day of week, and time of year was used to assess the association between race/ethnicity and hypothesized barriers to placement. The proportion of patients with >3 visits for referral to inpatient detox was compared between Black and Hispanic patients and white patients using a chi-squared test. RESULTS: We identified 1733 encounters from 782 unique patients seeking connection to inpatient detox for OUD. Of the 1733 encounters, 45% were among Black and Hispanic patients. Hispanic and Black men had significantly lower odds of having a barrier to inpatient OUD detox than white men (OR = 0.734, 95% CI 0.542-0.995). No significant difference was found for Hispanic and Black women (OR = 1.212, 95% CI 0.705-2.082). More Black and Hispanic patients experienced >3 referrals to inpatient detox compared to white patients (19.2% vs 12.9%, p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests in the context of near-universal health insurance coverage, an ED-based OUD support program staffed by diverse community members can mitigate inequities in access to inpatient detox. However, the increased number of ED visits for OUD detox placement by Black and Hispanic patients suggests racial inequities in OUD treatment exist after linkage to care. Additional research should explore the causes, specifically structural and interpersonal racism, and determine solutions to address racial inequities in detox placement as well as maintenance in treatment programs.

Loop Drainage Is Noninferior to Traditional Incision and Drainage of Cutaneous Abscesses in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: There is limited research on loop drainage (LD) compared to incision and drainage (I&D) for treatment of cutaneous abscesses. We investigated whether LD was noninferior to I&D for abscess resolution and whether there was any difference in repeat ED visits or complication rates between these techniques. METHODS: We performed a prospective randomized controlled trial, using a convenience sample at an urban academic emergency department (ED). Subjects over 18 years who presented for first-time management of an abscess were eligible. Patients requiring specialist drainage or hospital admission or had previous treatment for the abscess were excluded. Enrolled subjects were seen 2 weeks after treatment for blinded reevaluation of abscess resolution, and the electronic medical record was reviewed for return ED visits/abscess complications. RESULTS: Of 2,889 patients screened, 238 subjects consented and were randomized to LD or I&D. Abscess resolution was achieved in 53/65 (81.5%) of patients in the I&D arm, compared to 66/75 (88%) in the LD arm. Fewer patients in the LD group compared to the I&D group returned to the ED for abscess-related management during the following 14 days (37.3% vs 67.1%, p = 0.002). Among returning subjects, there was a significant difference in mean visits per subject between LD and I&D groups (0.5 vs. 1.2, p = 0.001). There were fewer complications among LD than I&D subjects (9.3% vs. 24.6%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Our study provides evidence that LD is noninferior to I&D in achieving complete abscess resolution at 14 days and is associated with fewer return ED visits and fewer complications. This makes it an attractive alternative treatment option for abscesses.

Point-of-care Lung Ultrasound Is More Sensitive than Chest Radiograph for Evaluation of COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Current recommendations for diagnostic imaging for moderately to severely ill patients with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) include chest radiograph (CXR). Our primary objective was to determine whether lung ultrasound (LUS) B-lines, when excluding patients with alternative etiologies for B-lines, are more sensitive for the associated diagnosis of COVID-19 than CXR. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients who presented to a single, academic emergency department in the United States between March 20 and April 6, 2020, and received LUS, CXR, and viral testing for COVID-19 as part of their diagnostic evaluation. The primary objective was to estimate the test characteristics of both LUS B-lines and CXR for the associated diagnosis of COVID-19. Our secondary objective was to evaluate the proportion of patients with COVID-19 that have secondary LUS findings of pleural abnormalities and subpleural consolidations. RESULTS: We identified 43 patients who underwent both LUS and CXR and were tested for COVID-19. Of these, 27/43 (63%) tested positive. LUS was more sensitive (88.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 71.1-97.0) for the associated diagnosis of COVID-19 than CXR (51.9%, 95% CI, 34.0-69.3; p = 0.013). LUS and CXR specificity were 56.3% (95% CI, 33.2-76.9) and 75.0% (95% CI, 50.0-90.3), respectively (p = 0.453). Secondary LUS findings of patients with COVID-19 demonstrated 21/27 (77.8%) had pleural abnormalities and 10/27 (37%) had subpleural consolidations. CONCLUSION: Among patients who underwent LUS and CXR, LUS was found to have a higher sensitivity than CXR for the evaluation of COVID-19. This data could have important implications as an aid in the diagnostic evaluation of COVID-19, particularly where viral testing is not available or restricted. If generalizable, future directions would include defining how to incorporate LUS into clinical management and its role in screening lower-risk populations.