Rapid Emergency Department Physical Space Modifications for COVID-19: Keeping Patients and Health Care Workers Safe.

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed significant strain on emergency departments (EDs) that were not designed to care for many patients who may be highly contagious. This report outlines how a busy urban ED was adapted to prepare for COVID-19 via 3 primary interventions: (1) creating an open-air care space in the ambulance bay to cohort, triage, and rapidly test patients with suspected COVID-19, (2) quickly constructing temporary doors on all open treatment rooms, and (3) adapting and expanding the waiting room. This description serves as a model by which other EDs can repurpose their own care spaces to help ensure safety of their patients and health care workers.

Abstracts from international emergency medicine journals

Editor's note: EMJ has partnered with the journals of multiple international emergency medicine societies to share from each a highlighted research study, as selected by their editors. This edition will feature an from each publication.

Primary survey: Highlights from this issue

Fernando et al report a large retrospective evaluation of prehospital opioid use in patients with ACS, finding no association with major adverse cardiac events, though patients who received opioids were more likely to have critically obstructed coronary flow prior to coronary intervention. Separately, Wilkinson-Stokes et al report a systematic review to examine the assertion that nitrates should not be used in patients with right ventricular myocardial infarction, due to the risk of precipitating hypotension. In that analysis, the absence of blood flow on Doppler ultrasound had a sensitivity of only 58.3% with 81.3% negative predictive value.

Community emergency medicine throughout the UK and Ireland: a comparison of current national activity.

BACKGROUND: Community emergency medicine (CEM) aims to bring highly skilled, expert medical care to the patient outside of the traditional ED setting. Currently, there are several different CEM models in existence within the UK and Ireland which confer multiple benefits including provision of a senior clinical decision-maker early in the patient's journey, frontloading of time-critical interventions, easing pressure on busy EDs and reducing inpatient bed days. This is achieved through increased community-based management supplemented by utilisation of alternative care pathways. This study aimed to undertake a national comparison of CEM services currently in operation. METHOD: A data collection tool was distributed to CEM services by the Pre-Hospital trainee Operated Research Network in October 2020 which aimed to establish current practice among services in the UK and Ireland. It focused on six key sections: service aims; staffing and training; job tasking and patient selection; funding and vehicles used; equipment and medication; data collection, governance and research activity. RESULTS: Seven services responded from across England, Wales and Ireland. Similarities were found with the aims of each service, staffing structures and operational times. There were large differences in equipment carried, categories of patient targeted and with governance and research activity. CONCLUSION: While some national variations in services are explained by funding and geographical location, this review process revealed several differences in practice under the umbrella term of CEM. A national definition of CEM and its aim, with guidance on scope of practice and measurable outcomes, should be generated to ensure high standard and cost-effective emergency care is delivered in the community.

Highlights from this issue

[...]in Sabir and colleagues paper, the triggers for scoring systems result in inclusion of elderly patients who have chronic disease, end of life conditions, or those who would not be appropriate for escalation of care due to poor functional status. The authors suggest regulations around age and alcohol limits, helmet use, and preventing technical modifications of e-scooters to increase speed. The authors identify the higher risk of injury and the complexity of decision-making for cervical spine clearance: the Canadian C spine rule advises imaging in all patients aged >65 years and the NEXUS criteria may miss injury in older patients.

Prognostic accuracy of triage tools for adults with suspected COVID-19 in a prehospital setting: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Tools proposed to triage patient acuity in COVID-19 infection have only been validated in hospital populations. We estimated the accuracy of five risk-stratification tools recommended to predict severe illness and compared accuracy to existing clinical decision making in a prehospital setting. METHODS: An observational cohort study using linked ambulance service data for patients attended by Emergency Medical Service (EMS) crews in the Yorkshire and Humber region of England between 26 March 2020 and 25 June 2020 was conducted to assess performance of the Pandemic Respiratory Infection Emergency System Triage (PRIEST) tool, National Early Warning Score (NEWS2), WHO algorithm, CRB-65 and Pandemic Medical Early Warning Score (PMEWS) in patients with suspected COVID-19 infection. The primary outcome was death or need for organ support. RESULTS: Of the 7549 patients in our cohort, 17.6% (95% CI 16.8% to 18.5%) experienced the primary outcome. The NEWS2 (National Early Warning Score, version 2), PMEWS, PRIEST tool and WHO algorithm identified patients at risk of adverse outcomes with a high sensitivity (>0.95) and specificity ranging from 0.3 (NEWS2) to 0.41 (PRIEST tool). The high sensitivity of NEWS2 and PMEWS was achieved by using lower thresholds than previously recommended. On index assessment, 65% of patients were transported to hospital and EMS decision to transfer patients achieved a sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.85) and specificity of 0.39 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.40). CONCLUSION: Use of NEWS2, PMEWS, PRIEST tool and WHO algorithm could improve sensitivity of EMS triage of patients with suspected COVID-19 infection. Use of the PRIEST tool would improve sensitivity of triage without increasing the number of patients conveyed to hospital.

Highlights from this issue

Interestingly, given the relatively recent publication of landmark trials such as AIRWAYS-2 (which identified no benefit with advanced airway management in out of hospital cardiac arrest), Doan et al found that advanced airway management was associated with improved odds of survival to hospital handover. [...]we know that the ‘awareness time interval’ (the time from witnessing cardiac arrest to activating emergency services) is an important prognostic factor for patients with OHCA. [...]linking with the discrete choice experiment asking ‘who should get the scarce intensive care unit bed?’ mentioned above, Walzi et al present the findings of a systematic review of factors influencing decisions to limit treatment in the Emergency Department.

Highlights from this issue

The authors are to be congratulated for meeting the multiple challenges of conducting a randomised controlled trial in the prehospital setting. The review includes seven papers, which the authors rated as having low risk of bias, and finds a pooled sensitivity of 91%, specificity of 96%, positive predictive value of 88% and negative predictive value of 97% for this imaging method in detecting skull fractures. [...]as Than and colleagues write in their related commentary: “the study is not saying—‘don’t bother, you can’t do anything about the frequent attenders’, rather, it is helping us see that while we may impact the individual by providing resources needed to avoid ED use, we will only make meaningful volume change through changes in the system itself.”

Hospitalisations for emergency-sensitive conditions in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic: insights from the German-wide Helios hospital network.

BACKGROUND: While there are numerous reports that describe emergency care during the early COVID-19 pandemic, there is scarcity of data for later stages. This study analyses hospitalisation rates for 37 emergency-sensitive conditions in the largest German-wide hospital network during different pandemic phases. METHODS: Using claims data of 80 hospitals, consecutive cases between 1 January and 17 November 2020 were analysed and compared with a corresponding period in 2019. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) comparing the two periods were calculated using Poisson regression to model the number of hospitalisations per day. RESULTS: There was a reduction in hospitalisations between 12 March and 13 June 2020 (coinciding with the first pandemic wave) with 32 807 hospitalisations (349.0/day) as opposed to 39 379 (419.0/day) in 2019 (IRR 0.83, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.85, p<0.01). During the following period (14 June-17 November 2020, including the start of second wave), hospitalisations were reduced from 63 799 (406.4/day) in 2019 to 59 910 (381.6/day) in 2020, but this reduction was not as pronounced (IRR 0.94, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.95, p<0.01). During the first wave hospitalisations for acute myocardial infarction, aortic aneurysm/dissection, pneumonitis, paralytic ileus/intestinal obstruction and pulmonary embolism declined but subsequently increased compared with the corresponding periods in 2019. In contrast, hospitalisations for sepsis, pneumonia, obstructive pulmonary disease and intracranial injuries were reduced during the entire observation period. CONCLUSIONS: There was an overall reduction of absolute hospitalisations for emergency-sensitive conditions in Germany during the first 10 months of the COVID-19 pandemic with heterogeneous effects on different disease categories. The increase in hospitalisations for acute myocardial infarction, aortic aneurysm/dissection and pulmonary embolism requires attention and further studies.

Emergency medicine patient wait time multivariable prediction models: a multicentre derivation and validation study.

OBJECTIVE: Patients, families and community members would like emergency department wait time visibility. This would improve patient journeys through emergency medicine. The study objective was to derive, internally and externally validate machine learning models to predict emergency patient wait times that are applicable to a wide variety of emergency departments. METHODS: Twelve emergency departments provided 3 years of retrospective administrative data from Australia (2017-2019). Descriptive and exploratory analyses were undertaken on the datasets. Statistical and machine learning models were developed to predict wait times at each site and were internally and externally validated. Model performance was tested on COVID-19 period data (January to June 2020). RESULTS: There were 1 930 609 patient episodes analysed and median site wait times varied from 24 to 54 min. Individual site model prediction median absolute errors varied from±22.6 min (95% CI 22.4 to 22.9) to ±44.0 min (95% CI 43.4 to 44.4). Global model prediction median absolute errors varied from ±33.9 min (95% CI 33.4 to 34.0) to ±43.8 min (95% CI 43.7 to 43.9). Random forest and linear regression models performed the best, rolling average models underestimated wait times. Important variables were triage category, last-k patient average wait time and arrival time. Wait time prediction models are not transferable across hospitals. Models performed well during the COVID-19 lockdown period. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic emergency demographic and flow information can be used to approximate emergency patient wait times. A general model is less accurate if applied without site-specific factors.

Adaptation of ED design layout during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to describe the organisational changes in French EDs in response to the COVID-19 pandemic with regard to architectural constraints and compare with the recommendations of the various bodies concerning the structural adjustments to be made in this context. METHODS: As part of this cross-sectional study, all heads of emergency services or their deputies were contacted to complete an electronic survey. This was a standardised online questionnaire consisting of four parts: characteristics of the responding centre, creation of the COVID-19 zone and activation of the hospital's emergency operations plan, flow and circulation of patients and, finally, staff management. Each centre was classified according to its workload related to COVID-19 and its size (university hospital centre, high-capacity hospital centre and low-capacity hospital centre). The main endpoint was the frequency of implementation of international guidelines for ED organisation. RESULTS: Between 11 May and 20 June 2020, 57 French EDs completed the online questionnaire and were included in the analysis. Twenty-eight EDs were able to separate patient flows into two zones: high and low viral density (n=28/57, 49.1%). Of the centres included, 52.6% set up a specific triage area for patients with suspected COVID-19 (n=30/57). Whereas, in 15 of the EDs (26.3%), the architecture made it impossible to increase the surface area of the ED. CONCLUSION: All EDs have adapted, but many of the changes recommended for the organisation of ED could not be implemented. ED architecture constrains adaptive capacities in the context of COVID-19.

Exercise-induced hypoxia among emergency department patients admitted for suspected COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Exercise-induced hypoxia (EIH) has been assessed at ED triage as part of an assessment of COVID-19; however, evidence supporting this practice is incomplete. We assessed the use of a 1-minute sit-to-stand exercise test among ED patients admitted for suspected COVID-19. METHODS: A case note review of all ED patients assessed for suspected COVID-19 between March and May 2020 at Monklands University Hospital was conducted. Demographic characteristics, clinical parameters, baseline blood tests and radiographic findings, hospital length of stay, intensive care and maximum oxygen requirement were obtained for those admitted. Using logistic regression, the association between EIH at admission triage and COVID-19 diagnosis was explored adjusting for confounding clinical parameters. RESULTS: Of 127 ED patients admitted for possible COVID-19, 37 were ultimately diagnosed with COVID-19. 36.4% of patients with COVID-19 and EIH had a normal admission chest radiograph. In multivariate analysis, EIH was an independent predictor of COVID-19 (adjusted OR 3.73 (95% CI (1.25 to 11.15)), as were lymphocyte count, self-reported exertional dyspnoea, C-reactive peptide and radiographic changes. CONCLUSIONS: This observational study demonstrates an association between EIH and a COVID-19 diagnosis. Over one-third of patients with COVID-19 and EIH exhibited no radiographic changes. EIH may represent an additional tool to help predict a COVID-19 diagnosis at initial presentation and may assist in triaging need for admission.

Head home: implementation during COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Recent research suggests that between 20% and 50% of paediatric head injuries attending our emergency department (ED) could be safely discharged soon after triage, without the need for medical review, using a 'Head Injury Discharge At Triage' tool (HIDAT). We sought to implement this into clinical practice. METHODS: Paediatric ED triage staff underwent competency-based assessments for HIDAT with all head injury presentations 1 May to 31 October 2020 included in analysis. We determined which patients were discharged using the tool, which underwent CT of the brain and whether there was a clinically important traumatic brain injury or representation to the ED. RESULTS: Of the 1429 patients screened; 610 (43%) screened negative with 250 (18%) discharged by nursing staff. Of the entire cohort, 32 CTs were performed for head injury concerns (6 abnormal) with 1 CT performed in the HIDAT negative group (normal). Of those discharged using HIDAT, four reattended, two with vomiting (no imaging or admission) and two with minor scalp wound infections. Two patients who screened negative declined discharge under the policy with later medical discharge (no imaging or admission). Paediatric ED attendances were 29% lower than in 2018. CONCLUSION: We have successfully implemented HIDAT into local clinical practice. The number discharged (18%) is lower than originally described; this is likely multifactorial. The relationship between COVID-19 and paediatric ED attendances is unclear but decreased attendances suggest those for whom the tool was originally designed are not attending ED and may be accessing other medical/non-medical resources.

Prognostic accuracy of emergency department triage tools for adults with suspected COVID-19: the PRIEST observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The WHO and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommend various triage tools to assist decision-making for patients with suspected COVID-19. We aimed to compare the accuracy of triage tools for predicting severe illness in adults presenting to the ED with suspected COVID-19. METHODS: We undertook a mixed prospective and retrospective observational cohort study in 70 EDs across the UK. We collected data from people attending with suspected COVID-19 and used presenting data to determine the results of assessment with the WHO algorithm, National Early Warning Score version 2 (NEWS2), CURB-65, CRB-65, Pandemic Modified Early Warning Score (PMEWS) and the swine flu adult hospital pathway (SFAHP). We used 30-day outcome data (death or receipt of respiratory, cardiovascular or renal support) to determine prognostic accuracy for adverse outcome. RESULTS: We analysed data from 20 891 adults, of whom 4611 (22.1%) died or received organ support (primary outcome), with 2058 (9.9%) receiving organ support and 2553 (12.2%) dying without organ support (secondary outcomes). C-statistics for the primary outcome were: CURB-65 0.75; CRB-65 0.70; PMEWS 0.77; NEWS2 (score) 0.77; NEWS2 (rule) 0.69; SFAHP (6-point rule) 0.70; SFAHP (7-point rule) 0.68; WHO algorithm 0.61. All triage tools showed worse prediction for receipt of organ support and better prediction for death without organ support. At the recommended threshold, PMEWS and the WHO criteria showed good sensitivity (0.97 and 0.95, respectively) at the expense of specificity (0.30 and 0.27, respectively). The NEWS2 score showed similar sensitivity (0.96) and specificity (0.28) when a lower threshold than recommended was used. CONCLUSION: CURB-65, PMEWS and the NEWS2 score provide good but not excellent prediction for adverse outcome in suspected COVID-19, and predicted death without organ support better than receipt of organ support. PMEWS, the WHO criteria and NEWS2 (using a lower threshold than usually recommended) provide good sensitivity at the expense of specificity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN56149622.