Validation of the COVID-19-12O score for predicting readmissions/revisits in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia discharged from the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19-12O-score has been validated to determine the risk of respiratory failure in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Our study aims to assess whether the score is effective in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia discharged from a hospital emergency department (HED) to predict readmission and revisit. METHOD: Retrospective cohort of patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia discharged consecutively from an HUS of a tertiary hospital, from January 7 to February 17, 2021, where we applied the COVID-19-12O -score, with a cut-off point of 9 points to define the risk of admission or revisit. The primary outcome variable was revisit with or without hospital readmission after 30 days of discharge from HUS. RESULTS: We included 77 patients, with a median age of 59 years, 63.6% men and Charlson index of 2. 9.1% had an emergency room revisit and 15.3% had a deferred hospital admission. The relative risk (RR) for emergency journal was 0.46 (0.04-4.62, 95% CI, p=0.452), and the RR for hospital readmission was 6.88 (1.20-39.49, 95% CI, p<0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19-12O -score is effective in determining the risk of hospital readmission in patients discharged from HED with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, but is not useful for assessing the risk of revisit.

Quality of hospital emergency department care for patients with COVID-19 during the first wave in 2020: the CALUR-COVID-19 study. / Estudio CALUR-COVID-19: calidad asistencial en urgencias del proceso de atención a pacientes con COVID-19 durante el primer pico pandémico de 2020.

OBJECTIVES: To define quality of care indicators and care process standards for treating patients with COVID-19 in hospital emergency departments (EDs), to determine the level of adherence to standards during the first wave in 2020, and to detect factors associated with different levels of adherence. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We selected care indicators and standards by applying the Delphi method. We then analyzed the level of adherence in the SIESTA cohort (registered by the Spanish Investigators in Emergency Situations Team). This cohort was comprised of patients with COVID-19 treated in 62 Spanish hospitals in March and April 2020. Adherence was compared according to pandemic-related ED caseload pressure, time periods during the wave (earlier and later), and age groups. RESULTS: Fourteen quality indicators were identified. Three were adhered to in less than 50% of the patients. Polymerase chain reaction testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection was the indicator most often disregarded, in 29% of patients when the caseload was high vs 40% at other times (P .001) and in 30% of patients in the later period vs 37% in the earlier period (P = .04). Adherence to the following indicators was better in the later part of the wave: monitoring of oxygen saturation (100% vs 99%, P = .035), electrocardiogram monitoring in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine (87% vs 65%, P .001), and avoiding of lopinavir/ritonavir treatment in patients with diarrhea (79% vs 53%, P .001). No differences related to age groups were found. CONCLUSION: Adherence to certain quality indicators deteriorated during ED treatment of patients with COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic. Pressure from high caseloads may have exacerbated this deterioration. A learning effect led to improvement. No differences related to patient age were detected.

OBJETIVO: Definir indicadores de calidad y sus estándares para el proceso asistencial del paciente con COVID-19 en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH), así como determinar su grado de cumplimiento durante el primer pico pandémico e investigar si existieron diferencias en relación con diferentes factores. METODO: Siguiendo la metodología del Delphi, los autores seleccionaron los indicadores y sus estándares. Posteriormente, se analizó el grado de cumplimiento en la cohorte SIESTA, formada por pacientes COVID-19 de 62 SUH españoles atendidos en marzo y abril de 2020. Se comparó el cumplimiento de los indicadores según la presión asistencial generada por la pandemia en el SUH, el periodo asistencial y el grupo etario. RESULTADOS: Se definieron 14 indicadores. Tres de ellos se cumplieron en 50% de los pacientes. La realización de la reacción en cadena de la polimerasa (PCR) para el SARS-CoV-2 tuvo peor cumplimiento en SUH con alta presión (29% frente a 40%, p 0,001) y durante el periodo tardío (30% frente a 37%, p = 0,04). Durante el periodo tardío, mejoró la medida de saturación de oxígeno (100% frente a 99%, p = 0,035), la realización de electrocardiograma en pacientes tratados con hidroxicloroquina (87% frente a 65%, p 0,001) y la no administración de lopinavir-ritonavir en pacientes con diarrea (79% frente a 53%, p 0,001). No hubo diferencias en relación con el grupo etario. CONCLUSIONES: Durante el primer pico pandémico, diversos aspectos de la calidad de la atención a pacientes COVID-19 en los SUH españoles se vieron deteriorados. La presión asistencial pudo incrementar este deterioro. Hubo un efecto de aprendizaje que condicionó una mejora, pero no se observaron diferencias según la edad de los pacientes.

Effective fast-track ambulatory care pathway for patients with COVID-19 at risk for poor outcome: the COVID-A2R model in a hospital emergency department

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of a care pathway (Spanish acronym, COVID-A2R) through which patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection were referred by a hospital emergency department (ED) for fast-track in-person outpatient clinic care if they did not have respiratory insufficiency but were at high risk for complications and poor outcome. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort of patients referred to the COVID-A2R pathway after being diagnosed with COVID-19 by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay in a tertiary care hospital ED between January 7 and February 17, 2021. The inclusion criteria were 1) absence of pneumonia but presence of serious comorbidity and/or elevated biomarkers of inflammation, and 2) pneumonia with or without elevated inflammatory markers but without respiratory insufficiency. The main outcome was need for an emergency department revisit with hospital admission and time from ED evaluation to hospitalization. Secondary outcomes were the number of COVID-A2R visits and the potential economic impact. RESULTS: We included 278 patients with a median age of 57 years (57.9% men) and a median Charlson Comorbidity Index of 1. The median time since onset of symptoms was 7 days (interquartile range, 4-11 days). Pneumonia was diagnosed in 71.8%, and 64.7% required only 1 in-person visit in the COVID-A2R pathway. No revisits to the ED were needed by 87.8% (83.4%-91.1%) of the patients. Of the 34 patients who were hospitalized, 88.2% were admitted within 5 days. The COVID-A2R model potentially saved 1708 days of hospitalization. CONCLUSION: The fast-track ambulatory care model was effective after emergency department discharge of patients with COVID-19 without respiratory insufficiency but with clinical or laboratory indicators of risk for poor outcome. OBJETIVO: Evaluar la efectividad de un modelo asistencial basado en la derivación desde el servicio de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH) a una consulta presencial precoz de alta resolución (COVID-A2R), para pacientes con infección por SARS-CoV-2 sin insuficiencia respiratoria, pero con factor de riesgo de complicación/deterioro clínico. METODO: Cohorte retrospectiva de pacientes remitidos por COVID-19 (RT-PCR) desde el SUH de un hospital terciario a COVID-A2R (7 de enero - 17 de febrero de 2021). Los criterios de inclusión son presencia de alta comorbilidad y elevación de biomarcadores inflamatorios en pacientes sin neumonía, o la presencia de neumonía con elevación de biomarcadores inflamatorios sin insuficiencia respiratoria. La variable de resultado principal fue el no requerimiento de revisita en el SUH con ingreso hospitalario y su distribución temporal. Los objetivos secundarios son la frecuentación en COVID-A2R y el impacto económico potencial. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 278 pacientes, edad mediana de 57 años, 57,9% hombres e índice de Charlson de 1. Consultaron en el SUH tras 7 (4-11) días de clínica y un 71,8% de los casos presentaban neumonía. El 64,7% de los pacientes requirió una visita única en COVID-A2R. No se produjo una revisita a urgencias con ingreso en el 87,8% (83,4-91,1) de los pacientes. De los 34 pacientes que ingresaron, el 88,2% lo hizo en menos de 5 días. El ahorro potencial del modelo fue de 1.708 días de ingreso hospitalario. CONCLUSIONES: Un modelo asistencial ambulatorio con una consulta de alta resolución tras el alta de urgencias es efectivo para pacientes con COVID-19 sin insuficiencia respiratoria con marcadores clínicos o analíticos de evolución desfavorable.

Capacity and organisation of Madrid's community hospitals during first wave of COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic exerted enormous stress on the healthcare system. Community of Madrid hospitals responded by restructuring and scaling their capacity to adapt to the high demand for care. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study conducted between 18 March and 21 June 2020 with data from public and private hospitals in CoM, Spain. Absolute and relative frequencies were calculated for inpatients with and without COVID-19, available and occupied beds in intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU wards, daily new admissions (NA), individuals awaiting hospitalisation in the emergency department (ED), and discharges. RESULTS: Compared to pre-pandemic years, during the maximum care pressure period (18 March-17 April 2020), the average number of total available and occupied beds increased by 27% and 36%, respectively. Also, the average number of available and occupied ICU beds increased by 174% and 257% respectively, and average occupancy was 81%. The average daily NAs were 1,503 (90% from the ED) and 949 (63% due to COVID-19), and of these, 61 (6.4%) were admitted to the ICU. On average, at 6:00p.m., 1112 patients were waiting in the ED to be admitted and 299 (26.8%) patients waited for more than 24h. Discharges due to death for COVID-19 inpatients in the non-ICU and ICU wards were 16% and 36%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed the critical role of the ICU and ED, especially in the care of patients before being hospitalizated, in pandemic or health crisis scenarios.

Key issues in emergency department management of COVID-19: proposals for improving care for patients in Latin America. / Puntos clave sobre la COVID-19 en los servicios de urgencias: propuestas de mejora para su atención en Latinoamérica.

The incidence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Latin America and Spain and its impact particularly on hospital emergency departments have been great, sustained, and unpredictable. Unfortunately, this situation will continue in the medium term, regardless of the diverse concepts and definitions used to identify cases or hypotheses about the role of staff. In the context of the worldwide pandemic, a multinational group of experts from the Latin American Working Group to Improve Care for Patients With Infection (GT-LATINFURG) has drafted various opinion papers for use by emergency care systems in the member countries. The GT-LATINFURG is comprised of representatives from the 13 scientific associations affiliated with the Latin American Federation for Emergency Medicine (FLAME). Experts from the Spanish Society of Emergency Medicine (SEMES) also participated. The present consensus statement offers protocols and recommendations to facilitate the work of hospital emergency departments with regard to key issues the group identified, namely, the need for reorganization, triage, and routine test availability. Additional issues discussed include biomarkers; clinical, laboratory, radiologic, and microbiologic criteria for identifying patients with COVID-19; and risk and prognostic factors for mortality that emergency staff can use to quickly detect severe cases in our settings.

La incidencia y el impacto de la COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) en Latinoamérica y España, en particular en sus servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH), independientemente de la diversidad de los conceptos y definiciones de casos confirmados o sospechosos empleados ha sido, es, y, desgraciadamente a medio plazo, va a seguir siendo enorme, sostenida e imprevisible. En este escenario global, un grupo multinacional de expertos y representantes del Grupo de Trabajo Latinoamericano para la mejora de la atención del paciente con Infección en Urgencias (GTLATINFURG), compuesto por 13 Sociedades y Asociaciones Científicas que integran la Federación Latinoamericana de Medicina de Emergencias (FLAME), junto con la Sociedad Española de Medicina de Urgencias y Emergencias (SEMES), ha elaborado diversos documentos técnicos y de opinión destinados a los profesionales de los Sistemas de Urgencias y Emergencias de nuestros países. El objetivo de este artículo es ofrecer unas pautas o recomendaciones consensuadas para facilitar la actuación de los SUH en relación los puntos que los miembros del grupo han considerado más interesantes o clave en relación a: la necesidad de reorganizar los SUH, triaje, disponibilidad de pruebas complementarias habituales y otras como biomarcadores, la identificación del paciente con COVID-19 a través de criterios clínicos, analíticos, radiológicos y microbiológicos, así como factores de riesgo, pronóstico y de mortalidad que puedan ayudar a detectar rápidamente a los pacientes graves a su llegada a los dispositivos de Urgencias y Emergencias de los hospitales en nuestro entorno.

Assessment of trends and clinical presentation in the emergency department of patients with renal colic during the COVID-19 pandemic era. / Evaluación de las tendencias y presentación clínica de pacientes con cólico nefrítico que acuden al servicio de urgencias durante la era pandémica del COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: We hypothesized that the recent COVID-19 pandemic may lead to a delay in renal colic patients presenting to the Emergency Department due to the fear of getting infected. This delay may lead to a more severe clinical condition at presentation with possible complications for the patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective review of data collected from three institutions from Spain and Italy. Patients who presented to Emergency Department with unilateral or bilateral renal colic caused by imaging confirmed urolithiasis during the 45 days before and after each national lockdown were included. Data collected included patients' demographics, biochemical urine and blood tests, radiological tests, signs, symptoms and the therapeutic management. Analysis was performed between two groups, Group A: patients presenting prior to the national lockdown date; and Group B: patients presenting after the national lockdown date. RESULTS: A total of 397 patients presented to Emergency Department with radiology confirmed urolithiasis and were included in the study. The number of patients presenting to Emergency Department with renal/ureteric colic was 285 (71.8%) patients in Group A and 112 (28.2%) patients in Group B (p<0.001). The number of patients reporting a delay in presentation was 135 (47.4%) in Group A and 63 (56.3%) in Group B (p=0.11). At presentation, there were no statistical differences between Group A and Group B regarding the serum creatinine level, C reactive protein, white blood cell count, fever, oliguria, flank pain and hydronephrosis. In addition, no significant differences were observed with the length of stay, Urology department admission requirement and type of therapy. CONCLUSION: Data from our study showed a significant reduction in presentations to Emergency Department for renal colic after the lockdown in Spain and Italy. However, we did not find any significant difference with the length of stay, Urology department admission requirement and type of therapy.

What has changed during the state of emergency due to COVID-19 on an Academic Urology Department of a Tertiary Hospital in Portugal. / Los cambios producidos durante el estado de alarma debido a la COVID-19 en un Servicio de Urología de un Hospital Universitario Terciario en Portugal.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the activity the Urology Department of a Portuguese Academic Hospital during the state of emergency and the equivalent period at the previous year. We compared the number of elective consultations and diagnostic urologic examinations, number and type of elective surgeries, as well as patients' demographic characteristics and main causes of presentation to Urology Emergency Department (ED) during the two mentioned periods MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 691 patients coming to emergency department were collected from institutional clinical software from March 18 th 2020 to May 2 nd 2020 - and from the same period the previous year. Data collected were age, sex, day of the presentation to Emergency Department, referral from other hospitals, triage color, reason of admission, diagnosis of discharge, and the need for emergency surgery or hospitalization. In order to identify associations between demographic and clinical variables with having been submitted to an emergency surgery (outcome), logistic regression models were applied. RESULTS: Multivariable analysis showed an association of sex with being submitted to surgery, 65.6% decrease in the odds for the male gender. The period (COVID versus non-COVID) did not show a significant association with surgery. CONCLUSION: Our department experienced a noticeable activity reduction. We also observe a reduction in urgent causes to attend the ED considered less serious. The percentage of cases requiring emergency surgery and hospitalization was higher during COVID-period.

Diagnostic groups and short-term outcomes in suspected COVID-19 cases treated in an emergency department. / Categorías diagnósticas y resultados a corto plazo en los pacientes con sospecha de COVID-19 atendidos en un servicio de urgencias.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to describe the clinical characteristics and 30-day mortality rates in emergency department patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in different diagnostic groupings. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Secondary analysis of the COVID-19 registry compiled by the emergency department of Hospital Clínico San Carlos in Madrid, Spain. We selected suspected COVID-19 cases treated in the emergency department between February 28 and March 31, 2020. The cases were grouped as follows: 1) suspected, no polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test (S/no-PCR); 2) suspected, negative PCR (S/PCR-); 3) suspected, positive PCR (S/PCR+); 4) highly suspected, no PCR, or negative PCR (HS/no or PCR-); and 5) highly suspected, positive PCR (HS/PCR+). We collected clinical, radiologic, and microbiologic data related to the emergency visit. The main outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization and clinical severity of the episode. RESULTS: A total of 1993 cases (90.9%) were included as follows: S/no-PCR, 17.2%; S/PCR-, 11.4%; S/PCR+, 22.1%; HS/no PCR or PCR-, 11.7%; and HS/PCR+, 37.6%. Short-term outcomes differed significantly in the different groups according to demographic characteristics; comorbidity and clinical, radiographic, analytical, and therapeutic variables. Thirty-day mortality was 11.5% (56.5% in hospitalized cases and 19.6% in cases classified as severe). The 2 HS categories and the S/PCR+ category had a greater adjusted risk for 30-day mortality and for having a clinically severe episode during hospitalization in comparison with S/PCR- cases. Only the 2 HS categories showed greater risk for hospitalization than the S/PCR- cases. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 diagnostic groups differ according to clinical and laboratory characteristics, and the differences are associated with the 30-day prognosis.

OBJETIVO: El objetivo principal fue describir el perfil clínico y la mortalidad a los 30 días de diferentes categorías diagnósticas en los casos de COVID-19 atendidos en un servicio de urgencias (SU). METODO: Análisis secundario del registro COVID-19_URG-HCSC. Se seleccionaron los casos sospechosos de COVID-19 atendidos en un SU de Madrid desde el 28 de febrero hasta el 31 de marzo de 2020. La muestra se dividió: 1) sospecha con PCR no realizada (S/PCR NR); 2) sospecha con PCR negativa (S/PCR­); 3) sospecha con PCR positiva (S/ PCR+); 4) alta sospecha con PCR negativa o no realizada (AS/PCR­ o NR); y 5) alta sospecha con PCR positiva (AS/ PCR+). Se recogieron variables clínicas, radiológicas y microbiológicas del episodio de urgencias. La variable de resultado principal fue la mortalidad por cualquier causa a los 30 días. Las variables secundarias fueron el ingreso y la gravedad del episodio. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 1.993 pacientes; 17,2% S/PCR NR, 11,4% S/PCR­, 22,1% S/PCR+, 11,7% AS/PCR­ o NR y 37,6% AS/PCR+. Se hallaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas respecto a las variables demográficas, comorbilidad, clínicas, radiográficas, analíticas y terapéuticas y de resultados a corto plazo en función las categorías diagnósticas. La mortalidad global a los 30 días fue de un 11,5%, 56,5% casos fueron hospitalizados y 19,6% casos sufrieron un episodio grave. Las categorías de AS y de S/PCR+ tuvieron un incremento del riesgo ajustado de mortalidad a los 30 días y de sufrir un episodio grave durante el ingreso hospitalario respecto a S/PCR­. En relación al ingreso, solo las categorías de AS tuvieron un incremento del riesgo ajustado de hospitalización respecto a la categoría de S/PCR­. CONCLUSIONES: Existen diferentes categorías diagnósticas de la enfermedad COVID-19 en función del perfil clínico y microbiológico que tienen correlato con el pronóstico a 30 días.

Clinical findings, risk factors, and final outcome in patients diagnosed with pulmonary thromboembolism and COVID-19 in hospital emergency departments. / Características clínicas, factores de riesgo y resultados finales de pacientes con COVID-19 diagnosticados de tromboembolia de pulmón en urgencias.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze clinical, laboratory, and radiologic findings and final health outcomes in patients with pulmonary embolism and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To compare them to findings and outcomes in patients with pulmonary embolism without COVID-19. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Multicenter, observational, retrospective study in 4 Spanish hospital emergency departments (EDs) from January 15 to April 15, 2020. Cases were located by reviewing all ED requests for pulmonary computed tomography angiography (CTA) procedures. Clinical, laboratory, and radiologic findings; medical histories and comorbidity; risk factors; and outcomes were compared between the 2 groups of patients (with or without COVID-19). RESULTS: A total of 399 CTAs were ordered; 88 pulmonary embolisms were diagnosed, 28 of them (32%) in patients with COVID-19. This group had more men, and a history of thromboembolic disease was more common. We found no between-group differences in clinical presentation, laboratory, or radiologic findings; nor were there differences in final outcomes. In-hospital mortality was 7% (2 cases) in patients with COVID-19 and 17% (10 cases) in patients without the virus (odds ratio for death in patients with pulmonary embolism and COVID-19, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.08-1.89). CONCLUSION: We found no clinically important differences in the clinical, laboratory, or radiologic findings between patients with or without COVID-19 who were treated for pulmonary embolism in our hospital EDs. Final outcomes also did not differ.

OBJETIVO: Analizar las características clínicas, analíticas, radiológicas y los resultados finales de salud en una cohorte de pacientes con embolia pulmonar (EP) y COVID-19, y compararlas con un grupo de pacientes con EP sin COVID-19. METODO: Estudio multicéntrico, observacional y retrospectivo realizado en cuatro servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH) españoles del 15 de enero al 15 de abril de 2020. La detección de EP se hizo mediante la revisión de todas las angiografías por tomografía computarizada (angioTC) pulmonares solicitadas desde los SUH. Se han analizado dos grupos de pacientes con EP, con o sin enfermedad por COVID-19, y se comparan las características clínicas, analíticas, radiológicas, antecedentes y comorbilidad, factores de riesgo y resultados finales. RESULTADOS: Se realizaron 399 angioTC y se diagnosticaron 88 EP, 28 (32%) en pacientes con COVID-19. Estos pacientes fueron con más frecuencia hombres y tenían más antecedentes de enfermedad tromboembólica previa. No hubo diferencias en la presentación clínica, características analíticas o radiológicas ni en los resultados finales entre ambos grupos. La mortalidad intrahospitalaria fue del 7% (2 casos) en pacientes COVID y del 17% (10 casos) en pacientes sin COVID (OR de muerte en pacientes COVID con EP: 0,38, IC 95%: 0,08-1,89). CONCLUSIONES: No se han observado diferencias clínicamente relevantes en las características clínicas, analíticas, radiológicas y los resultados finales de salud en una cohorte de pacientes con EP y COVID-19 respecto a los pacientes con EP sin esta enfermedad atendidos en los SUH.