Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 229
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
1.
PLoS One ; 17(1): e0262193, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1606289

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate a logistic regression-based machine learning (ML) prognostic algorithm implemented in real-time as a clinical decision support (CDS) system for symptomatic persons under investigation (PUI) for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We developed in a 12-hospital system a model using training and validation followed by a real-time assessment. The LASSO guided feature selection included demographics, comorbidities, home medications, vital signs. We constructed a logistic regression-based ML algorithm to predict "severe" COVID-19, defined as patients requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, or died in or out-of-hospital. Training data included 1,469 adult patients who tested positive for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) within 14 days of acute care. We performed: 1) temporal validation in 414 SARS-CoV-2 positive patients, 2) validation in a PUI set of 13,271 patients with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 test during an acute care visit, and 3) real-time validation in 2,174 ED patients with PUI test or positive SARS-CoV-2 result. Subgroup analysis was conducted across race and gender to ensure equity in performance. RESULTS: The algorithm performed well on pre-implementation validations for predicting COVID-19 severity: 1) the temporal validation had an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) of 0.87 (95%-CI: 0.83, 0.91); 2) validation in the PUI population had an AUROC of 0.82 (95%-CI: 0.81, 0.83). The ED CDS system performed well in real-time with an AUROC of 0.85 (95%-CI, 0.83, 0.87). Zero patients in the lowest quintile developed "severe" COVID-19. Patients in the highest quintile developed "severe" COVID-19 in 33.2% of cases. The models performed without significant differences between genders and among race/ethnicities (all p-values > 0.05). CONCLUSION: A logistic regression model-based ML-enabled CDS can be developed, validated, and implemented with high performance across multiple hospitals while being equitable and maintaining performance in real-time validation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Decision Support Systems, Clinical , Logistic Models , Machine Learning , Triage/methods , COVID-19/physiopathology , Emergency Service, Hospital , Humans , ROC Curve , Severity of Illness Index
3.
Lab Med ; 52(5): 493-498, 2021 Sep 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526169

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the role of midregional proadrenomedullin (MR-proADM) in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We included 110 patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Biochemical biomarkers, including MR-proADM, were measured at admission. The association of plasma MR-proADM levels with COVID-19 severity, defined as a requirement for mechanical ventilation or in-hospital mortality, was evaluated. RESULTS: Patients showed increased levels of MR-proADM. In addition, MR-proADM was higher in patients who died during hospitalization than in patients who survived (median, 2.59 nmol/L; interquartile range, 2.3-2.95 vs median, 0.82 nmol/L; interquartile range, 0.57-1.03; P <.0001). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed good accuracy of MR-proADM for predicting mortality. A MR-proADM value of 1.73 nmol/L was established as the best cutoff value, with 90% sensitivity and 95% specificity (P <.0001). CONCLUSION: We found that MR-proADM could represent a prognostic biomarker of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Adrenomedullin/blood , COVID-19/diagnosis , Hypertension/diagnosis , Lung Diseases/diagnosis , Protein Precursors/blood , Aged , Alanine Transaminase/blood , Aspartate Aminotransferases/blood , Biomarkers/blood , C-Reactive Protein/metabolism , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/virology , Comorbidity , Female , Humans , Hypertension/blood , Hypertension/mortality , Hypertension/virology , Interleukin-6/blood , Lung Diseases/blood , Lung Diseases/mortality , Lung Diseases/virology , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Selection , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Survival Analysis , Triage/methods
4.
Pan Afr Med J ; 40: 41, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1513182

ABSTRACT

Introduction: the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has negatively impacted countries across the globe. Infected individuals will seek aid at various health care facilities. Many patients will recover without requiring specialised treatment. A significant percentage of infected individuals will need critical care management, which will begin in the emergency department, generally staffed by junior doctors. Junior doctors will need to stabilize, triage and manage these patients prior to referral to specialized units. Above and beyond the usual occupational demands that accompany junior doctors in state facilities, this pandemic will thrust further responsibility on them. The objectives were to describe crisis preparedness of junior doctors in the areas of triage decision-making and critical care management, outside the intensive care unit. Methods: this is a descriptive, cross-sectional study, utilizing a web-based survey. Junior doctors in South Africa, being doctors in year one or year two of internship and community service, were invited to participate anonymously via various social media platforms. Results: a total of 210 junior doctors across South Africa answered the survey. Junior doctors expressed confidence with knowledge of intubation drugs, to perform intubation and cardiopulmonary arrest resuscitation without supervision. Only 13.3% of respondents expressed comfort with setting and adjusting ventilator settings independently. 57% of participants expressed discomfort with making critical care triage decisions. Ninety-three percent (93%) of participants expressed benefit from a telemedicine intervention. Conclusion: junior doctors in South Africa indicate that they are prepared to initiate management of the critically ill patient outside the intensive care unit but remain uncertain in their ability to provide ongoing critical care management. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need to prepare junior doctors with the ability to manage critical care triage and management in emergency rooms. Leveraging of the workforce in South Africa may be potentiated by telemedicine interventions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Care/methods , Medical Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Triage/methods , Clinical Competence , Clinical Decision-Making , Critical Illness/therapy , Cross-Sectional Studies , Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Internship and Residency , South Africa , Surveys and Questionnaires
5.
Dtsch Med Wochenschr ; 146(9): 619-620, 2021 04.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1475520

ABSTRACT

The chances of therapeutic success are a recognized criterion in allocating scarce medical resources. The approach aims to maximize the number of individual lives saved. There is good reason also to consider the number of life years saved in each case.


Subject(s)
Age Factors , Life Expectancy , Triage/methods , COVID-19 , Health Care Rationing , Humans
6.
PLoS One ; 16(9): e0256763, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1416875

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact in the United States, particularly for Black populations, and has heavily burdened the healthcare system. Hospitals have created protocols to allocate limited resources, but there is concern that these protocols will exacerbate disparities. The sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score is a tool often used in triage protocols. In these protocols, patients with higher SOFA scores are denied resources based on the assumption that they have worse clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to assess whether using SOFA score as a triage tool among COVID-positive patients would exacerbate racial disparities in clinical outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed data from a retrospective cohort of hospitalized COVID-positive patients in the Yale-New Haven Health System. We examined associations between race/ethnicity and peak overall/24-hour SOFA score, in-hospital mortality, and ICU admission. Other predictors of interest were age, sex, primary language, and insurance status. We used one-way ANOVA and chi-square tests to assess differences in SOFA score across racial/ethnic groups and linear and logistic regression to assess differences in clinical outcomes by sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Our final sample included 2,554 patients. Black patients had higher SOFA scores compared to patients of other races. However, Black patients did not have significantly greater in-hospital mortality or ICU admission compared to patients of other races. CONCLUSION: While Black patients in this sample of hospitalized COVID-positive patients had higher SOFA scores compared to patients of other races, this did not translate to higher in-hospital mortality or ICU admission. Results demonstrate that if SOFA score had been used to allocate care, Black COVID patients would have been denied care despite having similar clinical outcomes to white patients. Therefore, using SOFA score to allocate resources has the potential to exacerbate racial inequities by disproportionately denying care to Black patients and should not be used to determine access to care. Healthcare systems must develop and use COVID-19 triage protocols that prioritize equity.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Delivery of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Healthcare Disparities/statistics & numerical data , Hospitals, University , Organ Dysfunction Scores , Triage/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , African Americans/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Connecticut , Female , Healthcare Disparities/ethnology , Hospital Mortality/ethnology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Triage/methods , Young Adult
7.
West J Emerg Med ; 22(5): 1032-1036, 2021 Aug 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1405509

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The cumulative burden of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the United States' healthcare system is substantial. To help mitigate this burden, novel solutions including telehealth and dedicated screening facilities have been used. However, there is limited data on the efficacy of such models and none assessing patient comfort levels with these changes in healthcare delivery. The aim of our study was to evaluate patients' perceptions of a drive-through medical treatment system in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: Patients presenting to a drive-through COVID-19 medical treatment facility were surveyed about their experience following their visit. An anonymous questionnaire consisting of five questions, using a five-point Likert scale was distributed via electronic tablet. RESULTS: We obtained 827 responses over two months. Three quarters of respondents believed care received was similar to that in a traditional emergency department (ED). Overall positive impression of the drive-through was 86.6%, and 95% believed that it was more convenient. CONCLUSION: Overall, the drive-through medical system was perceived as more convenient than the ED and was viewed as a positive experience. While representing a dramatic change in the delivery model of medical care, if such systems can provide comparable levels of care, they may be a viable option for sustained and surge healthcare delivery.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Delivery of Health Care/methods , Emergency Service, Hospital/trends , Health Services Accessibility , Pandemics , Patient Access to Records/psychology , Triage/methods , Adolescent , Adult , Ambulatory Care , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Satisfaction , Perception , Program Evaluation , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires , Triage/trends , United States/epidemiology
8.
Allergy Asthma Proc ; 42(5): 395-399, 2021 Sep 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1394716

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis/etiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Personnel , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Triage/methods , Vaccines, Synthetic/adverse effects , Adult , Aged , Anaphylaxis/diagnosis , Anaphylaxis/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Health Services/methods , Occupational Health Services/standards , Quality Improvement , Retrospective Studies , Self Report , Triage/standards , Vaccines, Synthetic/administration & dosage
12.
Future Oncol ; 17(32): 4389-4395, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1372054

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed many aspects of our everyday lives and medical practice, including oncology treatment; thyroid cancer surgery is not an exception. The reported number of fine-needle aspirations performed during the first semester of 2020 was significantly reduced. Poorly differentiated, medullary and anaplastic thyroid tumors are considered important indications for immediate surgical intervention. By contrast, most well-differentiated carcinomas present slow growth, and thus surgery can be deferred for a short period of time during which patients are under active surveillance. Thyroid surgeries have decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, prior to any intervention, negative COVID-19 status - with the use of a nasopharyngeal swab and reverse transcription PCR assay as the gold standard and chest CT scan as a complementary modality in some cases - must be confirmed to achieve a COVID-free pathway. Thorough preoperative assessment regarding both oncological and anatomical aspects should be performed to identify optimal timing for safe management.


Subject(s)
Primary Prevention/methods , Thyroid Neoplasms/surgery , Thyroidectomy/statistics & numerical data , Time-to-Treatment , Triage/methods , Biopsy, Fine-Needle , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Testing/methods , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Thyroid Gland/pathology , Thyroid Neoplasms/pathology
13.
Cancer ; 127(22): 4177-4189, 2021 11 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1363649

ABSTRACT

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%).


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Head and Neck Neoplasms/diagnosis , Remote Consultation/methods , Triage/methods , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Child , Child, Preschool , Communicable Disease Control/standards , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Head and Neck Neoplasms/epidemiology , Head and Neck Neoplasms/therapy , Humans , Infant , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Prospective Studies , Remote Consultation/standards , Risk Assessment/methods , Triage/standards , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Young Adult
14.
Emerg Med J ; 38(9): 692-693, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1320446

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Brain Injuries, Traumatic/diagnosis , COVID-19/prevention & control , Head Injuries, Closed/diagnosis , Head Injuries, Penetrating/diagnosis , Triage/methods , Brain Injuries, Traumatic/etiology , Brain Injuries, Traumatic/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Child , Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Emergency Service, Hospital/standards , Head Injuries, Closed/complications , Head Injuries, Penetrating/complications , Health Plan Implementation , Hospitals, Pediatric/organization & administration , Humans , Nurses, Pediatric/organization & administration , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Discharge , Professional Role , Triage/organization & administration , Triage/standards
15.
BMC Fam Pract ; 22(1): 146, 2021 07 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1295439

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , General Practice , General Practitioners , Remote Consultation , Triage , Attitude of Health Personnel , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/therapy , Clinical Competence , England/epidemiology , Female , General Practice/organization & administration , General Practice/standards , General Practice/trends , General Practitioners/psychology , General Practitioners/standards , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/standards , Male , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/ethics , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/trends , Remote Consultation/ethics , Remote Consultation/methods , Risk Management/trends , SARS-CoV-2 , Triage/ethics , Triage/methods , Triage/organization & administration , Triage/standards
17.
PLoS One ; 16(6): e0252411, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1278175

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In order for healthcare systems to prepare for future waves of COVID-19, an in-depth understanding of clinical predictors is essential for efficient triage of hospitalized patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 259 patients admitted to our hospitals in Rhode Island to examine differences in baseline characteristics (demographics and comorbidities) as well as presenting symptoms, signs, labs, and imaging findings that predicted disease progression and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Patients with severe COVID-19 were more likely to be older (p = 0.02), Black (47.2% vs. 32.0%, p = 0.04), admitted from a nursing facility (33.0% vs. 17.9%, p = 0.006), have diabetes (53.9% vs. 30.4%, p<0.001), or have COPD (15.4% vs. 6.6%, p = 0.02). In multivariate regression, Black race (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-3.9) and diabetes (aOR 2.2, 95%CI: 1.3-3.9) were independent predictors of severe disease, while older age (aOR 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01-1.07), admission from a nursing facility (aOR 2.7, 95% CI 1.1-6.7), and hematological co-morbidities predicted mortality (aOR 3.4, 95% CI 1.1-10.0). In the first 24 hours, respiratory symptoms (aOR 7.0, 95% CI: 1.4-34.1), hypoxia (aOR 19.9, 95% CI: 2.6-152.5), and hypotension (aOR 2.7, 95% CI) predicted progression to severe disease, while tachypnea (aOR 8.7, 95% CI: 1.1-71.7) and hypotension (aOR 9.0, 95% CI: 3.1-26.1) were associated with increased in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Certain patient characteristics and clinical features can help clinicians with early identification and triage of high-risk patients during subsequent waves of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Severity of Illness Index , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/virology , Comorbidity , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Epidemics , Female , Humans , Hypotension/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Rhode Island/epidemiology , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Tachypnea/epidemiology , Triage/methods
18.
PLoS One ; 16(6): e0253329, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1269923

ABSTRACT

The global pandemic of COVID-19 poses a huge threat to the health and lives of people all over the world, and brings unprecedented pressure to the medical system. We need to establish a practical method to improve the efficiency of treatment and optimize the allocation of medical resources. Due to the influx of a large number of patients into the hospital and the running of medical resources, blood routine test became the only possible check while COVID-19 patients first go to a fever clinic in a community hospital. This study aims to establish an efficient method to identify key indicators from initial blood routine test results for COVID-19 severity prediction. We determined that age is a key indicator for severity predicting of COVID-19, with an accuracy of 0.77 and an AUC of 0.92. In order to improve the accuracy of prediction, we proposed a Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) algorithm, which combines the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and Naïve Bayes (NB) classifier, to further select effective indicators from patients' initial blood test results. The MCDM algorithm selected 3 dominant feature subsets: {Age, WBC, LYMC, NEUT} with a selection rate of 44%, {Age, NEUT, LYMC} with a selection rate of 38%, and {Age, WBC, LYMC} with a selection rate of 9%. Using these feature subsets, the optimized prediction model could achieve an accuracy of 0.82 and an AUC of 0.93. These results indicated that Age, WBC, LYMC, NEUT were the key factors for COVID-19 severity prediction. Using age and the indicators selected by the MCDM algorithm from initial blood routine test results can effectively predict the severity of COVID-19. Our research could not only help medical workers identify patients with severe COVID-19 at an early stage, but also help doctors understand the pathogenesis of COVID-19 through key indicators.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Diagnostic Tests, Routine/methods , Hematologic Tests/methods , Severity of Illness Index , Triage/methods , Adult , Age of Onset , Aged , Biomarkers/blood , COVID-19/blood , Female , Humans , Machine Learning , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Risk Assessment/methods , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
19.
J Am Coll Surg ; 233(3): 435-444.e1, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1260777

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: High scores in the Medically Necessary, Time-Sensitive (MeNTS) scoring system, used for elective surgical prioritization during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, are assumed to be associated with worse outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the MeNTS scoring system in patients undergoing elective surgery during restricted capacity of our institution, with or without moderate or severe postoperative complications. STUDY DESIGN: In this prospective observational study, MeNTS scores of patients undergoing elective operations during May and June 2020 were calculated. Postoperative complication severity (classified as Group Clavien-Dindo < II or Group Clavien-Dindo ≥ II), as well as Duke Activity Index, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status, presence of smoking, leukocytosis, lymphopenia, elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), operation and anesthesia characteristics, intensive care requirement and duration, length of hospital stay, rehospitalization, and mortality were noted. RESULTS: There were 223 patients analyzed. MeNTS score was higher in the Clavien-Dindo ≥ II Group compared with the Clavien-Dindo < II Group (50.98 ± 8.98 vs 44.27 ± 8.90 respectively, p < 0.001). Duke activity status index (DASI) scores were lower, and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class, presence of smoking, leukocytosis, lymphopenia, elevated CRP, and intensive care requirement were higher in the Clavien-Dindo ≥ II Group (p < 0.01). Length of hospital stay was longer in the Clavien-Dindo ≥ II Group (15 [range 2-90] vs 4 [1-30] days; p < 0.001). Mortality was observed in 8 patients. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of MeNTS and DASI were 0.69 and 0.71, respectively, for predicting moderate/severe complications. CONCLUSIONS: Although significant, MeNTS score had low discriminating power in distinguishing patients with moderate/severe complications. Incorporation of a cardiovascular functional capacity measure could improve the scoring system.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Elective Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Pandemics , Postoperative Complications/classification , Triage/methods , Anesthesia , C-Reactive Protein/analysis , COVID-19/diagnosis , Critical Care , Elective Surgical Procedures/classification , Elective Surgical Procedures/mortality , Female , Health Priorities , Humans , Length of Stay , Leukocytosis/diagnosis , Lymphopenia/diagnosis , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Readmission , Physical Functional Performance , Postoperative Complications/mortality , Prospective Studies , Sensitivity and Specificity , Severity of Illness Index , Smoking , Treatment Outcome , Turkey
20.
BMC Infect Dis ; 21(1): 535, 2021 Jun 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1261269

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic a mass casualty incident of ambulatory patients occurred at the COVID-19 rapid response infrastructure (CRRI) facility at the University Hospital of Cologne (UHC). We report the development of a patient-centred mobile-device solution to support efficient management of the facility, triage of patients and rapid delivery of test results. METHODS: The UHC-Corona Web Tool (CWT) was developed as a web-based software useable on each patient's smartphone. It provides, among others, a self-reported medical history including type and duration of symptoms and potential risk contacts and links all retrieved information to the digital patient chart via a QR code. It provides scheduling of outpatient appointments and automated transmission of SARS-CoV-2 test results. RESULTS: The UHC-CWT was launched on 9 April 2020. It was used by 28,652 patients until 31 August 2020. Of those, 15,245 (53,2%) consulted the CRRI, representing 43,1% of all CRRI patients during the observed period. There were 8304 (29,0%) specifications concerning travel history and 17,145 (59,8%) indications of ≥1 symptom of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The most frequently indicated symptoms were sore throat (60,0%), headache (50,7%), common cold (45,1%) and cough (42,6%) while 11,057 (40,2%) patients did not report any symptoms. After implementation of the UHC-CWT, the amount of patient contacts per physician rose from 38 to 98,7 per day. The personnel for communication of test results were reduced from four on seven days to one on five days. CONCLUSION: The UHC-CWT is an effective digital solution for management of large numbers of outpatients for SARS-CoV-2 testing.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Internet , Triage/methods , Ambulatory Care Facilities , Electronic Health Records , Germany , Hospitals, University , Humans , Male , Medical History Taking , Pandemics , Smartphone , Surveys and Questionnaires , Travel
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...