Performance of a new symptom checker in patient triage: Canadian cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Computerized algorithms known as symptom checkers aim to help patients decide what to do should they have a new medical concern. However, despite widespread implementation, most studies on symptom checkers have involved simulated patients. Only limited evidence currently exists about symptom checker safety or accuracy when used by real patients. We developed a new prototype symptom checker and assessed its safety and accuracy in a prospective cohort of patients presenting to primary care and emergency departments with new medical concerns. METHOD: A prospective cohort study was done to assess the prototype's performance. The cohort consisted of adult patients (≥16 years old) who presented to hospital emergency departments and family physician clinics. Primary outcomes were safety and accuracy of triage recommendations to seek hospital care, seek primary care, or manage symptoms at home. RESULTS: Data from 281 hospital patients and 300 clinic patients were collected and analyzed. Sensitivity to emergencies was 100% (10/10 encounters). Sensitivity to urgencies was 90% (73/81) and 97% (34/35) for hospital and primary care patients, respectively. The prototype was significantly more accurate than patients at triage (73% versus 58%, p<0.01). Compliance with triage recommendations in this cohort using this iteration of the symptom checker would have reduced hospital visits by 55% but cause potential harm in 2-3% from delay in care. INTERPRETATION: The prototype symptom checker was superior to patients in deciding the most appropriate treatment setting for medical issues. This symptom checker could reduce a significant number of unnecessary hospital visits, with accuracy and safety outcomes comparable to existing data on telephone triage.

Factors Associated with Family Physician Follow-up 30 Days Post-discharge from a Local Canadian Community Emergency Department.

Introduction Close outpatient follow-up with a specialist or family physician post-discharge from the emergency department (ED) has been shown to increase adherence to antihypertensive medications, decrease mortality in heart failure, and reduce the odds of myocardial infarction or death after ED presentation for chest pain. A Canadian study demonstrated that 21% of patients who left the ED with a new diagnosis of atrial fibrillation, heart failure, or hypertension were not seen by a physician within 30 days. There is a paucity of research investigating why this follow-up does not occur. This study aimed to elucidate factors that are associated with outpatient follow-up by a family physician clinic following discharge from a local Canadian community emergency department. Methods A retrospective chart review of patients rostered to a family physician who presented to the community ED in the past two years was conducted. The primary outcome examined was a documented follow-up visit with any physician at the clinic within 30 days of the index ED visit. Patients aged 18 or older at the time of the initial ED visit were eligible for inclusion in the study. Exclusion criteria were the following: patients aged 17 or younger at the time of the initial ED visit, those who were not fully assessed at ED visit (i.e., left against medical advice), those whose charts corresponding to the ED visit were unable to be found, patients who were admitted to any facility within 30 days of ED visit, and patients who died within 30 days of the ED visit. Variables of interest extracted from the ED chart and clinic electronic medical record were the following: Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) score, documented discharge instructions, age, sex, primary residence distance from the clinic, last documented clinic visit before ED visit, and the date of and presenting complaint of the next clinic visit after the ED visit. Data were collected as continuous and categorical variables. Descriptive statistics were used to show the number and percentages of patients who followed up in clinic. Binomial regression analysis was used to determine if a specific variable was associated with patient follow-up. Inter-rater reliability between data abstractors was calculated using Fleiss Κ. An alpha-value of 0.05 was chosen, and SPSS version 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) was used for all statistical analyses. Results A total of 234 patients out of 1292 patients met inclusion criteria. 53% of patients were female, and the mean age was 50. Seventy-two (31%) received discharge instructions from the ED physician to follow up with their family doctor. In total, 93 of the 234 patients proceeded to have a documented clinic visit within 30 days (40%). 52% (n = 48) of these were women. Receiving specific discharge instructions increased the adjusted odds of follow-up (OR 3.07, 95% CI: 1.64-5.76; P < 0.05). Patients who followed up also tended to have been seen in clinic in the last three months, but this was not statistically significant. Conclusion Receiving specific discharge instructions to follow-up increased the odds that patients followed up with their family physician after discharge from the ED. ED physicians may consider giving explicit instructions to patients to improve monitoring of ongoing clinical issues. More research needs to be conducted on how to improve transitions of care. Countries with different healthcare models may have other barriers to appropriate follow-up.