Sort and Sieve: Pre-Triage Screening of Patients with Suspected COVID-19 in the Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: To reduce the risk of nosocomial transmission, suspected COVID-19 patients entering the Emergency Department (ED) were assigned to a high-risk (ED) or low-risk (acute medical unit, AMU) area based on symptoms, travel and contact history. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of our pre-triage screening method and to analyse the characteristics of initially undetected COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational, single centre study. Patients ≥ 18 years visiting the AMU-ED between 17 March and 17 April 2020 were included. Primary outcome was the (correct) number of COVID-19 patients assigned to the AMU or ED. RESULTS: In total, 1287 patients visited the AMU-ED: 525 (40.8%) AMU, 762 (59.2%) ED. Within the ED group, 304 (64.3%) of 473 tested patients were COVID-19 positive, compared to 13 (46.4%) of 28 tested patients in the AMU group. Our pre-triage screening accuracy was 63.7%. Of the 13 COVID-19 patients who were initially assigned to the AMU, all patients were ≥65 years of age and the majority presented with gastro-intestinal or non-specific symptoms. CONCLUSION: Older COVID-19 patients presenting with non-specific symptoms were more likely to remain undetected. ED screening protocols should therefore also include non-specific symptoms, particularly in older patients.

Early detection of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 at high risk of clinical deterioration: Utility of emergency department shock index.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 outbreak has put an unprecedented strain on Emergency Departments (EDs) and other critical care resources. Early detection of patients that are at high risk of clinical deterioration and require intensive monitoring, is key in ED evaluation and disposition. A rapid and easy risk-stratification tool could aid clinicians in early decision making. The Shock Index (SI: heart rate/systolic blood pressure) proved useful in detecting hemodynamic instability in sepsis and myocardial infarction patients. In this study we aim to determine whether SI is discriminative for ICU admission and in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Retrospective, observational, single-center study. All patients ≥18 years old who were hospitalized with COVID-19 (defined as: positive result on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test) between March 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020 were included for analysis. Data were collected from electronic medical patient records and stored in a protected database. ED shock index was calculated and analyzed for its discriminative value on in-hospital mortality and ICU admission by a ROC curve analysis. RESULTS: In total, 411 patients were included. Of all patients 249 (61%) were male. ICU admission was observed in 92 patients (22%). Of these, 37 patients (40%) died in the ICU. Total in-hospital mortality was 28% (114 patients). For in-hospital mortality the optimal cut-off SI ≥ 0.86 was not discriminative (AUC 0.49 (95% CI: 0.43-0.56)), with a sensitivity of 12.3% and specificity of 93.6%. For ICU admission the optimal cut-off SI ≥ 0.57 was also not discriminative (AUC 0.56 (95% CI: 0.49-0.62)), with a sensitivity of 78.3% and a specificity of 34.2%. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, SI measured at ED presentation was not discriminative for ICU admission and was not useful for early identification of patients at risk of clinical deterioration.

How well are sepsis and a sense of urgency documented throughout the acute care chain in the Netherlands? A prospective, observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the documentation of sepsis and a sense of urgency throughout the acute care chain. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Emergency department (ED) in a large district hospital in Heerlen, The Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included patients ≥18 years with suspected sepsis who visited the ED during out-of-hours between September 2017 and January 2018 (n=339) and had been referred by a general practitioner and/or transported by ambulance. We defined suspected sepsis as suspected or proven infection and the presence of ≥2 quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment and/or ≥2 Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria. OUTCOME MEASURES: We analysed how often sepsis and a sense of urgency were documented in the prehospital and ED medical records. A sense of urgency was considered documented when a medical record suggested the need of immediate assessment by a physician in the ED. We described documentation patterns throughout the acute care chain and investigated whether documentation of sepsis or a sense of urgency is associated with adverse outcomes (intensive care admission/30-day all-cause mortality). RESULTS: Sepsis was documented in 16.8% of medical records and a sense of urgency in 22.4%. In 4.1% and 7.7%, respectively, sepsis and a sense of urgency were documented by all involved professionals. In patients with an adverse outcome, sepsis was documented more often in the ED than in patients without an adverse outcome (47.9% vs 13.7%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that in prehospital and ED medical records, sepsis and a sense of urgency are documented in one out of five patients. In only 1 out of 20 patients sepsis or a sense of urgency is documented by all involved professionals. It is possible that poor documentation causes harm, due to delayed diagnosis or treatment. Hence, it could be important to raise awareness among professionals regarding the importance of their documentation.