The role of triage in the prevention and control of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To prevent and control public health emergencies, we set up a prescreening and triage workflow and analyzed the effects on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: In accordance with the requirements of the level 1 emergency response of public health emergencies in Shaanxi Province, China, a triage process for COVID-19 was established to guide patients through a 4-level triage process during their hospital visits. The diagnosis of COVID-19 was based on positive COVID-19 nucleic acid testing according to the unified triage standards of the Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia (Trial version 4),4 issued by the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China. RESULTS: The screened rate of suspected COVID-19 was 1.63% (4 of 246) in the general fever outpatient clinic and 8.28% (13 of 157) in the COVID-19 outpatient clinic, and they showed a significant difference (P = .00). CONCLUSIONS: The triage procedure effectively screened the patients and identified the high-risk population.

Protocol to assess performance of crisis standards of care guidelines for clinical triage.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, US states developed Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) algorithms to triage allocation of scarce resources to maximize population-wide benefit. While CSC algorithms were developed by ethical debate, this protocol guides their quantitative assessment. For CSC algorithms, this protocol addresses (1) adapting algorithms for empirical study, (2) quantifying predictive accuracy, and (3) simulating clinical decision-making. This protocol provides a framework for healthcare systems and governments to test the performance of CSC algorithms to ensure they meet their stated ethical goals. For complete details on the use and execution of this protocol, please refer to Jezmir et al. (2021).

Mass Critical Care Surge Response During COVID-19: Implementation of Contingency Strategies - A Preliminary Report of Findings From the Task Force for Mass Critical Care.

BACKGROUND: After the publication of a 2014 consensus statement regarding mass critical care during public health emergencies, much has been learned about surge responses and the care of overwhelming numbers of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gaps in prior pandemic planning were identified and require modification in the midst of severe ongoing surges throughout the world. RESEARCH QUESTION: A subcommittee from The Task Force for Mass Critical Care (TFMCC) investigated the most recent COVID-19 publications coupled with TFMCC members anecdotal experience in order to formulate operational strategies to optimize contingency level care, and prevent crisis care circumstances associated with increased mortality. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: TFMCC adopted a modified version of established rapid guideline methodologies from the World Health Organization and the Guidelines International Network-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist. With a consensus development process incorporating expert opinion to define important questions and extract evidence, the TFMCC developed relevant pandemic surge suggestions in a structured manner, incorporating peer-reviewed literature, "gray" evidence from lay media sources, and anecdotal experiential evidence. RESULTS: Ten suggestions were identified regarding staffing, load-balancing, communication, and technology. Staffing models are suggested with resilience strategies to support critical care staff. ICU surge strategies and strain indicators are suggested to enhance ICU prioritization tactics to maintain contingency level care and to avoid crisis triage, with early transfer strategies to further load-balance care. We suggest that intensivists and hospitalists be engaged with the incident command structure to ensure two-way communication, situational awareness, and the use of technology to support critical care delivery and families of patients in ICUs. INTERPRETATION: A subcommittee from the TFMCC offers interim evidence-informed operational strategies to assist hospitals and communities to plan for and respond to surge capacity demands resulting from COVID-19.

Rationing With Respect to Age During a Pandemic: A Comparative Analysis of State Pandemic Preparedness Plans.

BACKGROUND: Faced with possible shortages due to COVID-19, many states updated or rapidly developed crisis standards of care (CSCs) and other pandemic preparedness plans (PPPs) for rationing resources, particularly ventilators. RESEARCH QUESTION: How have US states incorporated the controversial standard of rationing by age and/or life-years into their pandemic preparedness plans? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was an investigator-initiated, textual analysis conducted from April to June 2020, querying online resources and in-state contacts to identify PPPs published by each of the 50 states and for Washington, DC. Analysis included the most recent versions of CSC documents and official state PPPs containing triage guidance as of June 2020. Plans were categorized as rationing by (A) short-term survival (≤ 1 year), (B) 1 to 5 expected life-years, (C) total life-years, (D) "fair innings," that is, specific age cutoffs, or (O) other. The primary measure was any use of age and/or life-years. Plans were further categorized on the basis of whether age/life-years was a primary consideration. RESULTS: Thirty-five states promulgated PPPs addressing the rationing of critical care resources. Seven states considered short-term prognosis, seven considered whether a patient had 1 to 5 expected life-years, 13 rationed by total life-years, and one used the fair innings principle. Seven states provided only general ethical considerations. Seventeen of the 21 plans considering age/life-years made it a primary consideration. Several plans borrowed heavily from a few common sources, although use of terminology was inconsistent. Many documents were modified in light of controversy. INTERPRETATION: Guidance with respect to rationing by age and/or life-years varied widely. More than one-half of PPPs, many following a few common models, included age/life-years as an explicit rationing criterion; the majority of these made it a primary consideration. Terminology was often vague, and many plans evolved in response to pushback. These findings have ethical implications for the care of older adults and other vulnerable populations during a pandemic.

Allergic reactions and adverse events associated with administration of mRNA-based vaccines. A health-care system experience.

Background: Adverse reactions, including anaphylaxis, to messenger RNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines rarely occur. Because of the need to administer a timely second dose in subjects who reported a reaction to their first dose, a panel of health-care professionals developed a safe triage of the employees and health care providers (EHCP) at a large health-care system to consider administration of future dosing. Methods: There were 28,544 EHCPs who received their first dose of COVID-19 vaccines between December 15, 2020, and March 8, 2021. The EHCPs self-reported adverse reactions to a centralized COVID-19 command center (CCC). The CCC screened and collected information on the quality of reaction, symptoms, and timing of the onset of the reaction. Results: Of 1253 calls to the CCC, 113 were identified as requiring consideration by a panel of three (American Board of Allergy and Immunology) ABAI-certified allergists for future dosing or formal in-person assessment. Of the 113 EHCPs, 94 (83.2%) were recommended to get their second dose. Eighty of 94 received their second planned dose without a severe or immediate reaction. Of the 14 of 113 identified as needing further evaluation, 6 were evaluated by a physician and subsequently received their second dose without a serious adverse reaction. Eight of 14 did not receive their second dose. Only 5 of the 113 EHCPs reported reactions (4.4%) were recommended to not take the second dose: 3 (2.6%) because of symptoms consistent with anaphylaxis, and 2 because of neurologic complications (seizure, stroke). Conclusion: The panel demonstrated that, by consideration of reaction history alone, the ECHPs could be appropriately triaged to receive scheduled second dosing of COVID-19 vaccines without delays for in-person evaluation and allergy testing.

Remote triage incorporating symptom-based risk stratification for suspected head and neck cancer referrals: A prospective population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Remote triage for suspected head and neck cancer (HNC) referrals was adopted by many institutions during the initial peak of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Its safety in this population has not been established. METHODS: A 16-week, prospective, multicenter national service evaluation was started on March 23, 2020. Suspected HNC referrals undergoing remote triage in UK secondary care centers were identified and followed up for a minimum of 6 months to record the cancer status. Triage was supported by risk stratification using a validated calculator. RESULTS: Data for 4568 cases were submitted by 41 centers serving a population of approximately 26 million. These represented 14.1% of the predicted maximum referrals for this population outside of pandemic times, and this gave the study a margin of error of 1.34% at 95% confidence. Completed 6-month follow-up data were available for 99.8% with an overall cancer rate of 5.6% (254 of 4557). The rates of triage were as follows: urgent imaging investigation, 25.4% (n = 1156); urgent face-to-face review, 27.8%; (n = 1268); assessment deferral, 30.3% (n = 1382); and discharge, 16.4% (n = 749). The corresponding missed cancers rates were 0.5% (5 of 1048), 0.3% (3 of 1149), 0.9% (12 of 1382), and 0.9% (7 of 747; P = .15). The negative predictive value for a nonurgent triage outcome and no cancer diagnosis was 99.1%. Overall harm was reported in 0.24% (11 of 4557) and was highest for deferred assessments (0.58%; 8 of 1382). CONCLUSIONS: Remote triage, incorporating risk stratification, may facilitate targeted investigations for higher risk patients and prevent unnecessary hospital attendance for lower risk patients. The risk of harm is low and may be reduced further with appropriate safety netting of deferred appointments. LAY SUMMARY: This large national study observed the widespread adoption of telephone assessment (supported by a risk calculator) of patients referred to hospital specialists with suspected head and neck cancer during the initial peak of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The authors identified 4568 patients from 41 UK centers (serving a population of more than 26 million people) who were followed up for a minimum of 6 months. Late cancers were identified, whether reviewed or investigated urgently (0.4%) or nonurgently (0.9%), but the overall rate of harm was low (0.2%), with the highest rate being seen with deferred appointments (0.6%).

Facility preparedness for an obstetric unit during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Covid-19 infection has placed health systems under unprecedented strain and foresight for preparedness is the key factor to avert disaster. Every facility that provides obstetric service needs a certain level of preparedness to be able to handle at least Covid-suspect pregnant women awaiting test reports, who need to be managed as Covid-positive patients till reports are available. Thus, these facilities need to have triage areas and Covid-suspect labour rooms. Healthcare facilities can have designated areas for Covid-positive patients or have referral linkages with designated Covid-positive hospitals. Preparation includes structural reorganization with setting up a Covid-suspect and Covid-positive facility in adequate space, as well as extensive training of staff about infection control practices and rational use of personal protective equipment (PPE). A systematic approach involving five essential steps of making standard operating procedures, infrastructural reorganization for a triage area and a Covid-suspect labour ward, procurement of PPE, managing the personnel and instituting appropriate infection control practices can ensure uninterrupted services to patients without compromising the safety of healthcare providers.

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.

A mixed-methods study describing behavioral factors that influenced general practitioners' experiences using triage during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, general practices were asked to expand triage and to reduce unnecessary face-to-face contact by prioritizing other consultation modes, e.g., online messaging, video, or telephone. The current study explores the potential barriers and facilitators general practitioners experienced to expanding triage systems and their attitudes towards triage during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: A mixed-method study design was used in which a quantitative online survey was conducted along with qualitative interviews to gain a more nuanced appreciation for practitioners' experiences in the United Kingdom. The survey items were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework so they would capture 14 behavioral factors that may influence whether practitioners use triage systems. Items were responded to using seven-point Likert scales. A median score was calculated for each item. The responses of participants identifying as part-owners and non-owners (i.e., "partner" vs. "non-partner" practitioners) were compared. The semi-structured interviews were conducted remotely and examined using Braun and Clark's thematic analysis. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 204 participants (66% Female). Most participants (83%) reported triaging patients. The items with the highest median scores captured the 'Knowledge,' 'Skills,' 'Social/Professional role and identity,' and 'Beliefs about capabilities' domains. The items with the lowest median scores captured the 'Beliefs about consequences,' 'Goals,' and 'Emotions' domains. For 14 of the 17 items, partner scores were higher than non-partner scores. All the qualitative interview participants relied on a phone triage system. Six broad themes were discovered: patient accessibility, confusions around what triage is, uncertainty and risk, relationships between service providers, job satisfaction, and the potential for total digital triage. Suggestions arose to optimize triage, such as ensuring there is sufficient time to conduct triage accurately and providing practical training to use triage efficiently. CONCLUSIONS: Many general practitioners are engaging with expanded triage systems, though more support is needed to achieve total triage across practices. Non-partner practitioners likely require more support to use the triage systems that practices take up. Additionally, practical support should be made available to help all practitioners manage the new risks and uncertainties they are likely to experience during non-face-to-face consultations.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health care activities at a Uruguayan mastology unit.

PURPOSE: Health emergency due to COVID-19 started in Uruguay on March 13, 2020; our mastology unit tried to ensure adequate oncological care, and protect patients from the virus infection and complications. OBJECTIVE: To assess the health care activities in the "peak" of the pandemic during 3 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: we collected data from the electronic health record. RESULTS: There were a total of 293 medical appointments from 131 patients (221 face-to-face), that decreased by 16.7% compared to the same period in 2019 (352 appointments). The medical appointments were scheduled to evaluate the continuity of systemic treatment or modifications (95 patients; 72.5%), follow-up (17; 12.9%), first-time consultation (12; 9.1%), and assess paraclinical studies (7; 5.3%). The patients were on hormone therapy (81 patients; 74%), chemotherapy (CT) (21; 19%), and anti-HER2 therapies (9; 8%). New twenty treatments were initiated. Of the 14 patients that were on adjuvant/neoadjuvant CT, 9 (64.3%) continued with the same regimen with the addition of prophylactic granulocyte-colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF), and 5 (35.7%), who were receiving weekly paclitaxel, continued the treatment with no changes. Of the seven patients that were on palliative CT, 2 (28.5%) continued the treatment with the addition of G-CSF, 3 (42.8%) continued with weekly capecitabine or paclitaxel with no treatment changes, and 2 (28.5%) changed their treatment regimen (a less myelosuppressive regimen was selected for one and due to progression of the disease in the other patient). The ninety patients who were receiving adjuvant, neoadjuvant, or palliative criteria hormone therapy and/or anti-HER2 therapies, continued the treatment with no changes. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that, although medical appointments decreased by approximately 17%, we could maintain healthcare activities, continued most of the treatments while the most modified was CT with G-CSF to avoid myelosuppression.

Establishing a South African national framework for COVID-19 surgical prioritisation.

BACKGROUND: Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, surgical operations have been drastically reduced in South Africa (SA). Guidelines on surgical prioritisation during COVID-19 have been published, but are specific to high-income countries. There is a pressing need for context-specific guidelines and a validated tool for prioritising surgical cases during the COVID-19 pandemic. In March 2020, the South African National Surgical Obstetric Anaesthesia Plan Task Team was asked by the National Department of Health to establish a national framework for COVID-19 surgical prioritisation. OBJECTIVES: To develop a national framework for COVID-19 surgical prioritisation, including a set of recommendations and a risk calculatorfor operative care. METHODS: The surgical prioritisation framework was developed in three stages: (i) a literature review of international, national and local recommendations on COVID-19 and surgical care was conducted; (ii) a set of recommendations was drawn up based on the available literature and through consensus of the COVID-19 Task Team; and (iii) a COVID-19 surgical risk calculator was developed and evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 30 documents were identified from which recommendations around prioritisation of surgical care were used to draw up six recommendations for preoperative COVID-19 screening and testing as well as the use of appropriate personal protective equipment. Ninety-nine perioperative practitioners from eight SA provinces evaluated the COVID-19 surgical risk calculator, which had high acceptability and a high level of concordance (81%) with current clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: This national framework on COVID-19 surgical prioritisation can help hospital teams make ethical, equitable and personalised decisions whether to proceed with or delay surgical operations during this unprecedented epidemic.

Psychosocial Distress in Adult Patients Awaiting Cancer Surgery during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Cancer causes substantial emotional and psychosocial distress, which may be exacerbated by delays in treatment. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in increased wait times for many patients with cancer. In this study, the psychosocial distress associated with waiting for cancer surgery during the pandemic was investigated. This cross-sectional, convergent mixed-methods study included patients with lower priority disease during the first wave of COVID-19 at an academic, tertiary care hospital in eastern Canada. Participants underwent semi-structured interviews and completed two questionnaires: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). Qualitative analysis was completed through a thematic analysis approach, with integration achieved through triangulation. Fourteen participants were recruited, with cancer sites including thyroid, kidney, breast, prostate, and a gynecological disorder. Increased anxiety symptoms were found in 36% of patients and depressive symptoms in 14%. Similarly, 64% of patients experienced moderate or high stress. Six key themes were identified, including uncertainty, life changes, coping strategies, communication, experience, and health services. Participants discussed substantial distress associated with lifestyle changes and uncertain treatment timelines. Participants identified quality communication with their healthcare team and individualized coping strategies as being partially protective against such symptoms. Delays in surgery for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in extensive psychosocial distress. Patients may be able to mitigate these symptoms partially through various coping mechanisms and improved communication with their healthcare teams.

Long-term Survival of Critically Ill Patients Stratified According to Pandemic Triage Categories: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented demand for ICUs, with the need to triage admissions along with the development of ICU triage criteria. However, how these criteria relate to outcomes in patients already admitted to the ICU is unknown, as is the incremental ICU capacity that triage of these patients might create given existing admission practices. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the short- and long-term survival of low- vs high-priority patients for ICU admission according to current pandemic triage criteria? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study analyzed prospectively collected registry data (2007-2018) in 23 ICUs in Victoria, Australia, with probabilistic linkage with death registries. After excluding elective surgery, admissions were stratified according to existing ICU triage protocol prioritization as low (age ≥ 85 years, or severe chronic illness, or Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] score = 0 or ≥ 12), medium (SOFA score = 8-11) or high (SOFA score = 1-7) priority. The primary outcome was long-term survival. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS) and bed-day usage. RESULTS: This study examined 126,687 ICU admissions. After 5 years of follow-up, 1,093 of 3,296 (33%; 95% CI, 32-34) of "low-priority" patients aged ≥ 85 years or with severe chronic illness and 86 of 332 (26%; 95% CI, 24-28) with a SOFA score ≥ 12 were still alive. Sixty-three of 290 (22%; 95% CI, 17-27) of patients in these groups followed up for 10 years were still alive. Together, low-priority patients accounted for 27% of all ICU bed-days and had lower in-hospital mortality (22%) than the high-priority patients (28%). Among nonsurvivors, low-priority admissions had shorter ICU LOS than medium- or high-priority admissions. INTERPRETATION: Current SOFA score or age or severe comorbidity-based ICU pandemic triage protocols exclude patients with a close to 80% hospital survival, a > 30% five-year survival, and 27% of ICU bed-day use. These findings imply the need for stronger evidence-based ICU triage protocols.

COVID-19 infection rates in patients referred for psychiatric admission during a regional surge: The case for universal testing.

Some psychiatric hospitals have instituted mandatory COVID-19 testing for all patients referred for admission. Others have permitted patients to decline testing. Little is known about the rate of COVID-19 infection in acute psychiatric inpatients. Characterizing the proportion of infected patients who have an asymptomatic presentation will help inform policy regarding universal mandatory versus symptom-based or opt-out testing protocols. We determined the COVID-19 infection rate and frequency of asymptomatic presentation in 683 consecutively admitted patients during the surge in the New York City region between April 3rd, 2020 and June 8th, 2020. Among these psychiatric inpatients, there was a 9.8 % overall rate of COVID-19 infection. Of the COVID-19 infected patients, approximately 76.1 % (51/67) either had no COVID-19 symptoms or could not offer reliable history of symptoms at the time of admission. Had they not been identified by testing and triaged to a COVID-19 positive unit, they could have infected others, leading to institutional outbreak. These findings provide justification for psychiatric facilities to maintain universal mandatory testing policies, at least until community infection rates fall and remain at very low levels.