Derivation and validation of a clinical decision rule to risk-stratify COVID-19 patients discharged from the emergency department: The CCEDRRN COVID discharge score.

Objective: To risk-stratify COVID-19 patients being considered for discharge from the emergency department (ED). Methods: We conducted an observational study to derive and validate a clinical decision rule to identify COVID-19 patients at risk for hospital admission or death within 72 hours of ED discharge. We used data from 49 sites in the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) between March 1, 2020, and September 8, 2021. We randomly assigned hospitals to derivation or validation and prespecified clinical variables as candidate predictors. We used logistic regression to develop the score in a derivation cohort and examined its performance in predicting short-term adverse outcomes in a validation cohort. Results: Of 15,305 eligible patient visits, 535 (3.6%) experienced the outcome. The score included age, sex, pregnancy status, temperature, arrival mode, respiratory rate, and respiratory distress. The area under the curve was 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.73) in derivation and 0.71 (95% CI 0.68-0.73) in combined derivation and validation cohorts. Among those with a score of 3 or less, the risk for the primary outcome was 1.9% or less, and the sensitivity of using 3 as a rule-out score was 89.3% (95% CI 82.7-94.0). Among those with a score of ≥9, the risk for the primary outcome was as high as 12.2% and the specificity of using 9 as a rule-in score was 95.6% (95% CI 94.9-96.2). Conclusion: The CCEDRRN COVID discharge score can identify patients at risk of short-term adverse outcomes after ED discharge with variables that are readily available on patient arrival.

Sensitivity and Diagnostic Yield of the First SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Amplification Test Performed for Patients Presenting to the Hospital.

Importance: Early and accurate diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 is essential to initiate appropriate treatment and infection control and prevention measures among patients presenting to the hospital. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) performed within 24 hours of arrival to the emergency department among a nationally representative sample of patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study was conducted at 47 hospitals across 7 provinces in Canada participating in the Canadian COVID-19 Rapid Response Emergency Department Network among consecutive eligible patients presenting to a participating emergency department who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021. Patients not tested within 24 hours of arrival and those presenting with a positive result from a test performed in the community were excluded. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a positive result from the SARS-CoV-2 NAAT. Outcome measures were the diagnostic sensitivity and yield of the SARS-CoV-2 NAAT. Results: Of 132 760 eligible patients (66 433 women [50.0%]; median age, 57 years [IQR, 37-74 years]), 17 174 (12.9%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 14 days of their first NAAT. The diagnostic sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 NAAT was 96.2% (17 070 of 17 740 [95% CI, 95.9%-96.4%]) among all of the tests performed. Estimates ranged from a high of 97.7% (1710 of 1751 [95% CI, 96.8%-98.3%]) on day 2 of symptoms to a low of 90.4% (170 of 188 [95% CI, 85.3%-94.2%]) on day 11 of symptoms among patients presenting with COVID-19 symptoms. Among patients reporting COVID-19 symptoms, the sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 NAAT was 97.1% (11 870 of 12 225 [95% CI, 96.7%-97.3%]) compared with 87.6% (812 of 927 [95% CI, 85.2%-89.6%]) among patients without COVID-19 symptoms. The diagnostic yield of the SARS-CoV-2 NAAT was 12.0% (18 985 of 158 004 [95% CI, 11.8%-12.2%]) and varied from a high of 20.0% (445 of 2229 [95% CI, 18.3%-21.6%]) among patients tested on day 10 after symptom onset to a low of 8.1% (1686 of 20 719 [95% CI, 7.7%-8.5%]) among patients presenting within the first 24 hours of symptom onset. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that the diagnostic sensitivity was high for the first SARS-CoV-2 NAAT performed in the hospital and did not vary significantly by symptom duration. Repeated testing of patients with negative test results should be avoided unless their pretest probability of disease is high.

Effect of hand versus electronic signatures on response rates in postal surveys: a randomised controlled trial among emergency physicians in Canada

ObjectivesHand signatures offer a more authentic personalisation, which carries over to a sense of trust, although are costly and time-consuming when considering large postal surveys. The objective of this study was to compare response rates when using either hand-signed or electronic-signed letters in a postal survey.Design and settingWe embedded this randomised controlled trial within a national cross-sectional postal survey of emergency physicians in Canada. The survey aimed to describe current practice patterns with respect to primary headache disorders.ParticipantsWe randomly sampled 500 emergency physicians listed in the Scott’s Canadian Medical Directory, 2019 edition.InterventionsUsing computer-generated random numbers, physicians were allocated to receiving either hand-signed (n=250) or electronic signed (n=250) letters. The initial mailout contained a US$5 Tim Hortons coffee card with the invitation letter. Four reminders were sent to non-responders every 3 weeks. The same type of signature was used for the initial invitation and subsequent reminders.OutcomeThe primary outcome was the survey response rate.ResultsAmong 500 physicians invited, 32 invitations were undeliverable. Among the remaining 468 physicians, 231 had been allocated to the hand-signed group and 237 to the electronic signed group. The response rate in the hand-signed group was 87 (37.7%) vs 97 (40.9%) in the electronic-signed group (absolute difference in proportions −3.3%, 95% CI −12.1% to 5.6%).ConclusionThere was no significant difference in physician response rate between hand-signed and e-signed cover letter and reminder letters. Electronic signatures should be used in future postal surveys among physicians to save on time and labour without impacting response rates.

Practice Variation among Canadian Stroke Prevention Clinics: Pre, During, and Post-COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is a common and serious disorder. With optimal care, 90-day recurrent stroke risk can be reduced from 10% to about 1%. Stroke prevention clinics (SPCs) can improve patient outcomes and resource allocation but lack standardization in patient management. The extent of variation in patient management among SPCs is unknown. Our aims were to assess baseline practice variation between Canadian SPCs and the impact of COVID-19 on SPC patient care. METHODS: We conducted an electronic survey of 80 SPCs across Canada from May to November 2021. SPC leads were contacted by email with up to five reminders. RESULTS: Of 80 SPCs contacted, 76 were eligible from which 38 (50.0%) responded. The majority (65.8%) of SPCs are open 5 or more days a week. Tests are more likely to be completed before the SPC visit if referrals were from clinic's own emergency department compared to other referring sources. COVID-19 had a negative impact on routine patient care including longer wait times (increased for 36.4% clinics) and higher number of patients without completed bloodwork prior to arriving for appointments (increased for 27.3% clinics). During COVID-19 pandemic, 87.9% of SPCs provided virtual care while 72.7% plan to continue with virtual care post-COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: Despite the time-sensitive nature of transient ischemic attack patient management, some SPCs in Canada are not able to see patients quickly. SPCs should endeavor to implement strategies so that they can see high-risk patients within the highest risk timeline and implement strategies to complete some tests while waiting for SPC appointment.

Public perceptions during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada: a demographic analysis of self-reported beliefs, behaviors, and information acquisition.

INTRODUCTION: We explored associations between sociodemographic factors and public beliefs, behaviors, and information acquisition related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to identify how the experiences of subpopulations in Canada may vary. METHODS: We administered a national online survey through Ipsos Incorporated to adults residing in Canada. Sampling was stratified by population age, sex, and regional distributions. We used descriptive statistics to summarize responses and test for differences based on gender, age, educational attainment, and household income using chi-squared tests, followed by weighted logistic regression. RESULTS: We collected 1996 eligible questionnaires between April 26th and May 1st, 2020. Respondents mean age was 50 years, 51% were women, 56% had a post-secondary degree, and 72% had a household income <$100,000. Our analysis found differences within the four demographic groups, with age effects most acutely evidenced. Respondents 65 years and older were more likely to perceive the pandemic as very serious, less likely to report declines in overall health, and more likely to intend to get vaccinated, compared to 18-29 year olds. Women overall were more likely to report negative outcomes than men, including stress due to the pandemic, and worsening social, mental/emotional, and spiritual health. Respondents 45 and older were more likely to seek and trust information from traditional Canadian news sources, while 18-29 year olds were more likely to seek and trust information on social media; overall, women and respondents with a post-secondary degree were more likely to access and trust online information from public health sites. CONCLUSION: This study found important demographic differences in how adults living in Canada perceived the COVID-19 pandemic, the impacts on their health, and their preferences for information acquisition. Our results highlight the need to consider demographic characteristics in tailoring the format and information medium to improve large scale acceptance and uptake of mitigation and containment measures.

Flow impacts of hot/cold zone infection control procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic forced emergency departments (EDs) to change operations to minimize nosocomial infection risk. Many EDs cohort patients using provincial screening tools at triage. Despite cohorting, staff exposures occurred in the 'cold zone' due to lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) use with patients deemed low risk, resulting in staff quarantines. The cohorting strategy was perceived to lengthen time to physician initial assessment and ED length of stay times in our ED without protecting staff well enough due to varying PPE use. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of hot/cold zones for patient cohorting during a viral pandemic on ED length of stay. METHODS: We conducted an interrupted time series analysis 3 weeks before and after the removal of hot/cold zone care space cohorting in our ED. In the before period, staff did not routinely wear full PPE to see cold zone patients. After removal, staff wore full PPE to see almost all patients. We collected data on ED length of stay, physician initial assessment times, arrival-to-room times, patient volumes, Canadian Triage Acuity Score (CTAS), admissions, staff hours of coverage, as well as proportions of patients on droplet/contact precautions and COVD-19 positive patients. The primary outcome was median ED length of stay. RESULTS: After the removal of the hot/cold divisions, there was a decrease in the adjusted median ED length of stay by 24 min (95% CI 14; 33). PPE use increased in the after arm of the study. The interrupted time series analysis suggested a decrease in median ED length of stay after removal, although the change in slope and difference did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Cohorted waiting areas may provide a safety benefit without operational compromise, but cohorting staff and care spaces is likely to compromise efficiency and create delays.

RéSUMé: CONTEXTE: La pandémie de COVID-19 a contraint les services d'urgence (SU) à modifier leur fonctionnement afin de minimiser le risque d'infection nosocomiale. De nombreux SU regroupaient des patients à l'aide d'outils de dépistage provinciaux au triage. Malgré la constitution de cohortes, les expositions du personnel se sont produites dans la "zone froide" en raison du manque d'utilisation d'équipements de protection individuelle (EPI) avec des patients jugés à faible risque, ce qui a entraîné la mise en quarantaine du personnel. Dans notre service d'urgence, la stratégie de cohorte a été perçue comme prolongeant l'évaluation initiale des médecins et la durée du séjour dans le service sans pour autant protéger suffisamment le personnel en raison de l'utilisation variable des EPI. L'objectif de cette étude était d'évaluer l'impact des zones chaudes/froides pour le regroupement de patients lors d'une pandémie virale sur la durée du séjour à l'urgence. MéTHODES: Nous avons réalisé une analyse de séries chronologiques interrompues trois semaines avant et après la suppression de la cohorte d'espace de soins en zone chaude/froide dans nos urgences. Au cours de la période précédente, le personnel ne portait pas systématiquement un EPI complet pour voir les patients des zones froides. Après le retrait, le personnel a porté un EPI complet pour voir presque tous les patients. Nous avons recueilli des données sur la durée du séjour aux urgences, les délais d'évaluation initiale par les médecins, les délais d'arrivée en salle, le volume de patients, L'échelle canadienne de triage et de gravité (ÉTG), les admissions, les heures de couverture du personnel, ainsi que les proportions de patients ayant reçu des précautions contre les gouttelettes et les contacts et de patients positifs au COVD-19. Le critère de jugement principal était la durée médiane du séjour aux urgences. RéSULTATS: Après la suppression des divisions chaudes/froides, la durée médiane ajustée du séjour aux urgences a diminué de 24 minutes (IC à 95 % : 14 ; 33). L'utilisation des EPI a augmenté dans le groupe suivant de l'étude. L'analyse des séries chronologiques interrompues suggère une diminution de la durée médiane de séjour aux urgences après le retrait, bien que le changement de la pente et de la différence n'ait pas atteint la signification statistique. CONCLUSION: Les zones d'attente en cohorte peuvent offrir un avantage en matière de sécurité sans compromis sur le plan opérationnel, mais le regroupement du personnel et des espaces de soins est susceptible de compromettre l'efficacité et de créer des retards.

The CCEDRRN COVID-19 Mortality Score to predict death among nonpalliative patients with COVID-19 presenting to emergency departments: a derivation and validation study.

BACKGROUND: Predicting mortality from COVID-19 using information available when patients present to the emergency department can inform goals-of-care decisions and assist with ethical allocation of critical care resources. The study objective was to develop and validate a clinical score to predict emergency department and in-hospital mortality among consecutive nonpalliative patients with COVID-19; in this study, we define palliative patients as those who do not want resuscitative measures, such as intubation, intensive care unit care or cardiopulmonary resuscitation. METHODS: This derivation and validation study used observational cohort data recruited from 46 hospitals in 8 Canadian provinces participating in the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN). We included adult (age ≥ 18 yr) nonpalliative patients with confirmed COVID-19 who presented to the emergency department of a participating site between Mar. 1, 2020, and Jan. 31, 2021. We randomly assigned hospitals to derivation or validation, and prespecified clinical variables as candidate predictors. We used logistic regression to develop the score in a derivation cohort and examined its performance in predicting emergency department and in-hospital mortality in a validation cohort. RESULTS: Of 8761 eligible patients, 618 (7.0%) died. The CCEDRRN COVID-19 Mortality Score included age, sex, type of residence, arrival mode, chest pain, severe liver disease, respiratory rate and level of respiratory support. The area under the curve was 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.93) in derivation and 0.92 (95% CI 0.90-0.93) in validation. The score had excellent calibration. These results suggest that scores of 6 or less would categorize patients as being at low risk for in-hospital death, with a negative predictive value of 99.9%. Patients in the low-risk group had an in-hospital mortality rate of 0.1%. Patients with a score of 15 or higher had an observed mortality rate of 81.0%. INTERPRETATION: The CCEDRRN COVID-19 Mortality Score is a simple score that can be used for level-of-care discussions with patients and in situations of critical care resource constraints to accurately predict death using variables available on emergency department arrival. The score was derived and validated mostly in unvaccinated patients, and before variants of concern were circulating widely and newer treatment regimens implemented in Canada. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04702945.

Development of the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network population-based registry: a methodology study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency physicians lack high-quality evidence for many diagnostic and treatment decisions made for patients with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective is to describe the methods used to collect and ensure the data quality of a multicentre registry of patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. METHODS: This methodology study describes a population-based registry that has been enrolling consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 since Mar. 1, 2020. Most data are collected from retrospective chart review. Phone follow-up with patients at 30 days captures the World Health Organization clinical improvement scale and contextual, social and cultural variables. Phone follow-up also captures patient-reported quality of life using the Veterans Rand 12-Item Health Survey at 30 days, 60 days, 6 months and 12 months. Fifty participating emergency departments from 8 provinces in Canada currently enrol patients into the registry. INTERPRETATION: Data from the registry of the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network will be used to derive and validate clinical decision rules to inform clinical decision-making, describe the natural history of the disease, evaluate COVID-19 diagnostic tests and establish the real-world effectiveness of treatments and vaccines, including in populations that are excluded or underrepresented in clinical trials. This registry has the potential to generate scientific evidence to inform our pandemic response, and to serve as a model for the rapid implementation of population-based data collection protocols for future public health emergencies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, no. NCT04702945.

3D printing in critical care: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: 3D printing (3DP) has gained interest in many fields of medicine including cardiology, plastic surgery, and urology due to its versatility, convenience, and low cost. However, critical care medicine, which is abundant with high acuity yet infrequent procedures, has not embraced 3DP as much as others. The discrepancy between the possible training or therapeutic uses of 3DP in critical care and what is currently utilized in other fields needs to be addressed. OBJECTIVE: This narrative literature review describes the uses of 3DP in critical care that have been documented. It also discusses possible future directions based on recent technological advances. METHODS: A literature search on PubMed was performed using keywords and Mesh terms for 3DP, critical care, and critical care skills. RESULTS: Our search found that 3DP use in critical care fell under the major categories of medical education (23 papers), patient care (4 papers) and clinical equipment modification (4 papers). Medical education showed the use of 3DP in bronchoscopy, congenital heart disease, cricothyroidotomy, and medical imaging. On the other hand, patient care papers discussed 3DP use in wound care, personalized splints, and patient monitoring. Clinical equipment modification papers reported the use of 3DP to modify stethoscopes and laryngoscopes to improve their performance. Notably, we found that only 13 of the 31 papers were directly produced or studied by critical care physicians. CONCLUSION: The papers discussed provide examples of the possible utilities of 3DP in critical care. The relative scarcity of papers produced by critical care physicians may indicate barriers to 3DP implementation. However, technological advances such as point-of-care 3DP tools and the increased demand for 3DP during the recent COVID-19 pandemic may change 3DP implementation across the critical care field.