Performance of three screening tools to predict COVID-19 positivity in emergency department patients.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 symptoms vary widely. This retrospective study assessed which of three clinical screening tools-a nursing triage screen (NTS), an ED review of systems (ROS) performed by physicians and physician assistants and a standardised ED attending (ie, consultant) physician COVID-19 probability assessment (PA)-best identified patients with COVID-19 on a subsequent reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) confirmation. METHODS: All patients admitted to Boston Medical Center from the ED between 27 April 2020 and 17 May 2020 were included. Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for each method. Logistic regression assessed each tool's performance. RESULTS: The attending physician PA had higher sensitivity (0.62, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.71) than the NTS (0.46, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.56) and higher specificity (0.76, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.80) than the NTS (0.71, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.75) and ED ROS (0.62, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.67). Categorisation as moderate or high probability on the ED physician PA was associated with the highest odds of having COVID-19 in regression analyses (adjusted OR=4.61, 95% CI 3.01 to 7.06). All methods had a low PPV (ranging from 0.26 for the ED ROS to 0.40 for the attending physician PA) and a similar NPV (0.84 for both the NTS and the ED ROS, and 0.89 for the attending physician PA). CONCLUSION: The ED attending PA had higher sensitivity and specificity than the other two methods, but none was accurate enough to replace a COVID-19 RT-PCR test in a clinical setting where transmission control is crucial. Therefore, we recommend universal COVID-19 testing prior to all admissions.

Institutional policies and readiness in management of critical illness among patients with viral hemorrhagic fever.

OBJECTIVE: In response to the 2013-2016 Ebola virus disease outbreak, the US government designated certain healthcare institutions as Ebola treatment centers (ETCs) to better prepare for future emerging infectious disease outbreaks. This study investigated ETC experiences and critical care policies for patients with viral hemorrhagic fever (VHF). DESIGN: A 58-item questionnaire elicited information on policies for 9 critical care interventions, factors that limited care provision, and innovations developed to deliver care. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The questionnaire was sent to 82 ETCs. METHODS: We analyzed ordinal and categorical data pertaining to the ETC characteristics and descriptive data about their policies and perceived challenges. Statistical analyses assessed whether ETCs with experience caring for VHF patients were more likely to have critical care policies than those that did not. RESULTS: Of the 27 ETCs who responded, 17 (63%) were included. Among them, 8 (47%) reported experience caring for persons under investigation or confirmed cases of VHF. Most felt ready to provide intubation, chest compressions, and renal replacement therapy to these patients. The factors most cited for limiting care were staff safety and clinical futility. Innovations developed to better provide care included increased simulation training and alternative technologies for procedures and communication. CONCLUSIONS: There were broad similarities in critical care policies and limitations among institutions. There were several interventions, namely ECMO and cricothyrotomy, which few institutions felt ready to provide. Future studies could identify obstacles to providing these interventions and explore policy changes after increased experience with novel infectious diseases, such as COVID-19.

COVID-19 guidelines for pregnant women and new mothers: A systematic evidence review.

BACKGROUND: Nearly a year after COVID-19 was initially detected, guidance for pregnant and new mothers remains varied. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this systematic review is to summarize recommendations for three areas of maternal and fetal care-breastfeeding, post-partum social distancing, and decontamination. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science spanning from inception to November 9, 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Articles were included if they focused on COVID-positive mothers, commented on at least one of the three areas of interest, and were published in English. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Our combined database search yielded 385 articles. After removing duplicates and articles that did not cover the correct populations or subject matter, a total of 74 articles remained in our analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Most articles recommended direct breastfeeding with enhanced precaution measures. Recommendations regarding post-partum social distancing varied, although articles published more recently often recommended keeping the mother and newborn in the same room when possible. Decontamination recommendations emphasized mask wearing, good hand hygiene, and proper cleaning of surfaces. CONCLUSION: In general, there was a focus on shared decision making when approaching topics such as breastfeeding and post-partum social distancing. Guidelines for decontamination were fairly uniform.