Prognostic accuracy of emergency department triage tools for adults with suspected COVID-19: The PRIEST observational cohort study

Objectives: The World Health Organisation (WHO) and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommend various triage tools to assist decision-making for patients with suspected COVID-19. We aimed to estimate the accuracy of triage tools for predicting severe illness in adults presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected COVID-19 infection. Methods: We undertook a mixed prospective and retrospective observational cohort study in 70 EDs across the United Kingdom (UK). We collected data from people attending with suspected COVID-19 between 26 March 2020 and 28 May 2020, and used presenting data to determine the results of assessment with the following triage tools: the WHO algorithm, NEWS2, CURB-65, CRB-65, PMEWS and the swine flu adult hospital pathway (SFAHP). We used 30-day outcome data (death or receipt of respiratory, cardiovascular or renal support) to determine prognostic accuracy for adverse outcome. Results: We analysed data from 20892 adults, of whom 4672 (22.4%) died or received organ support (primary outcome), with 2058 (9.9%) receiving organ support and 2614 (12.5%) dying without organ support (secondary outcomes). C-statistics for the primary outcome were: CURB-65 0.75; CRB-65 0.70; PMEWS 0.77; NEWS2 (score) 0.77; NEWS2 (rule) 0.69; SFAHP (6-point) 0.70; SFAHP (7-point) 0.68; WHO algorithm 0.61. All triage tools showed worse prediction for receipt of organ support and better prediction for death without organ support. At the recommended threshold, PMEWS and the WHO criteria showed good sensitivity (0.96 and 0.95 respectively), at the expense of specificity (0.31 and 0.27 respectively). NEWS2 showed similar sensitivity (0.96) and specificity (0.28) when a lower threshold than recommended was used. Conclusion: CURB-65, PMEWS and NEWS2 provide good but not excellent prediction for adverse outcome in suspected COVID-19, and predicted death without organ support better than receipt of organ support. PMEWS, the WHO criteria and NEWS2 (using a lower threshold than usually recommended) provide good sensitivity at the expense of specificity.

Download Full-text

Prognostic accuracy of emergency department triage tools for adults with suspected COVID-19: the PRIEST observational cohort study

Emergency Medicine Journal ◽

10.1136/emermed-2020-210783 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. emermed-2020-210783

Author(s):

Ben Thomas ◽

Steve Goodacre ◽

Ellen Lee ◽

Laura Sutton ◽

Matthew Bursnall ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cohort Study ◽

Primary Outcome ◽

Adverse Outcome ◽

Observational Cohort Study ◽

Early Warning Score ◽

Organ Support ◽

Good Sensitivity ◽

Who Criteria ◽

Prognostic Accuracy ◽

Observational Cohort

BackgroundThe WHO and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommend various triage tools to assist decision-making for patients with suspected COVID-19. We aimed to compare the accuracy of triage tools for predicting severe illness in adults presenting to the ED with suspected COVID-19.MethodsWe undertook a mixed prospective and retrospective observational cohort study in 70 EDs across the UK. We collected data from people attending with suspected COVID-19 and used presenting data to determine the results of assessment with the WHO algorithm, National Early Warning Score version 2 (NEWS2), CURB-65, CRB-65, Pandemic Modified Early Warning Score (PMEWS) and the swine flu adult hospital pathway (SFAHP). We used 30-day outcome data (death or receipt of respiratory, cardiovascular or renal support) to determine prognostic accuracy for adverse outcome.ResultsWe analysed data from 20 891 adults, of whom 4611 (22.1%) died or received organ support (primary outcome), with 2058 (9.9%) receiving organ support and 2553 (12.2%) dying without organ support (secondary outcomes). C-statistics for the primary outcome were: CURB-65 0.75; CRB-65 0.70; PMEWS 0.77; NEWS2 (score) 0.77; NEWS2 (rule) 0.69; SFAHP (6-point rule) 0.70; SFAHP (7-point rule) 0.68; WHO algorithm 0.61. All triage tools showed worse prediction for receipt of organ support and better prediction for death without organ support. At the recommended threshold, PMEWS and the WHO criteria showed good sensitivity (0.97 and 0.95, respectively) at the expense of specificity (0.30 and 0.27, respectively). The NEWS2 score showed similar sensitivity (0.96) and specificity (0.28) when a lower threshold than recommended was used.ConclusionCURB-65, PMEWS and the NEWS2 score provide good but not excellent prediction for adverse outcome in suspected COVID-19, and predicted death without organ support better than receipt of organ support. PMEWS, the WHO criteria and NEWS2 (using a lower threshold than usually recommended) provide good sensitivity at the expense of specificity.Trial registration numberISRCTN56149622.

Download Full-text

Prognostic accuracy of emergency department triage tools for children with suspected COVID-19: The PRIEST observational cohort study

10.1101/2020.09.01.20185793 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Katie Biggs ◽

Ben Thomas ◽

Steve Goodacre ◽

Ellen Lee ◽

Laura Sutton ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Emergency Department ◽

Cohort Study ◽

Adverse Outcome ◽

Outcome Data ◽

Observational Cohort Study ◽

Swine Flu ◽

Severe Illness ◽

Prognostic Accuracy ◽

Emergency Department Triage ◽

Observational Cohort

Objectives: Emergency department clinicians can use triage tools to predict adverse outcome and support management decisions for children presenting with suspected COVID-19. We aimed to estimate the accuracy of triage tools for predicting severe illness in children presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected COVID-19 infection. Methods: We undertook a mixed prospective and retrospective observational cohort study in 44 EDs across the United Kingdom (UK). We collected data from children attending with suspected COVID-19 between 26 March 2020 and 28 May 2020, and used presenting data to determine the results of assessment using the WHO algorithm, swine flu hospital pathway for children (SFHPC), Paediatric Observation Priority Score (POPS) and Childrens Observation and Severity Tool (COAST). We recorded 30-day outcome data (death or receipt of respiratory, cardiovascular or renal support) to determine prognostic accuracy for adverse outcome. Results: We collected data from 1530 children, including 26 (1.7%) with an adverse outcome. C-statistics were 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.73-0.87) for the WHO algorithm, 0.80 (0.71-0.90) for POPS, 0.76 (0.67-0.85) for COAST, and 0.71 (0.59-0.82) for SFHPC. Using pre-specified thresholds, the WHO algorithm had the highest sensitivity (0.85) and lowest specificity (0.75), but POPS and COAST could optimise sensitivity (0.96 and 0.92 respectively) at the expense of specificity (0.25 and 0.38 respectively) by using a threshold of any score above zero instead of the pre-specified threshold. Conclusion: Existing triage tools have good but not excellent prediction for adverse outcome in children with suspected COVID-19. POPS and COAST could achieve an appropriate balance of sensitivity and specificity for supporting decisions to discharge home by considering any score above zero to be positive.

Download Full-text

LO60: Frailty and associated prognosis among older emergency department patients with suspected infection – a prospective, observational cohort study

CJEM ◽

10.1017/cem.2020.115 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 22 (S1) ◽

pp. S29-S29 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

S. Fernando ◽

K. Guo ◽

M. Lukasik ◽

B. Rochwerg ◽

D. Cook ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Emergency Department ◽

Cohort Study ◽

Primary Outcome ◽

Tertiary Care ◽

Clinical Frailty Scale ◽

Suspected Infection ◽

Prognostic Accuracy ◽

Failure Assessment ◽

Observational Cohort ◽

Emergency Department Patients

Introduction: Prognostication and disposition among older Emergency Department (ED) patients with suspected infection remains challenging. Frailty is increasingly recognized as a predictor of poor prognosis among critically ill patients, however its association with clinical outcomes among older ED patients with suspected infection is unknown. Methods: We conducted a multicentre prospective cohort study at two tertiary care EDs. We included older ED patients (≥ 75 years) presenting with suspected infection. Frailty at baseline (prior to index illness) was explicitly measured for all patients by the treating physicians using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). We defined frailty as a CFS 5-8. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. We used multivariable logistic regression to adjust for known confounders. We also compared the prognostic accuracy of frailty against the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) and Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) criteria. Results: We enrolled 203 patients, of whom 117 (57.6%) were frail. Frail patients were more likely to develop septic shock (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08-2.51) and more likely to die within 30 days of ED presentation (aOR 2.05, 95% CI: 1.02-5.24). Sensitivity for mortality was highest among the CFS (73.1%, 95% CI: 52.2-88.4), as compared to SIRS ≥ 2 (65.4%, 95% CI: 44.3-82.8) or qSOFA ≥ 2 (38.4, 95% CI: 20.2-59.4). Conclusion: Frailty is a highly prevalent prognostic factor that can be used to risk-stratify older ED patients with suspected infection. ED clinicians should consider screening for frailty in order to optimize disposition in this population.

Download Full-text

Post-exertion oxygen saturation as a prognostic factor for adverse outcome in patients attending the emergency department with suspected COVID-19: a substudy of the PRIEST observational cohort study

Emergency Medicine Journal ◽

10.1136/emermed-2020-210528 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. emermed-2020-210528

Author(s):

Steve Goodacre ◽

Ben Thomas ◽

Ellen Lee ◽

Laura Sutton ◽

Amanda Loban ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Emergency Department ◽

Cohort Study ◽

Oxygen Saturation ◽

Adverse Outcome ◽

Multivariable Analysis ◽

Observational Cohort Study ◽

Likelihood Ratios ◽

Hospital Records ◽

C Statistic ◽

Observational Cohort

BackgroundMeasurement of post-exertion oxygen saturation has been proposed to assess illness severity in suspected COVID-19 infection. We aimed to determine the accuracy of post-exertional oxygen saturation for predicting adverse outcome in suspected COVID-19.MethodsWe undertook a substudy of an observational cohort study across 70 emergency departments during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. We collected data prospectively, using a standardised assessment form, and retrospectively, using hospital records, from patients with suspected COVID-19, and reviewed hospital records at 30 days for adverse outcome (death or receiving organ support). Patients with post-exertion oxygen saturation recorded were selected for this analysis. We constructed receiver-operating characteristic curves, calculated diagnostic parameters, and developed a multivariable model for predicting adverse outcome.ResultsWe analysed data from 817 patients with post-exertion oxygen saturation recorded after excluding 54 in whom measurement appeared unfeasible. The c-statistic for post-exertion change in oxygen saturation was 0.589 (95% CI 0.465 to 0.713), and the positive and negative likelihood ratios of a 3% or more desaturation were, respectively, 1.78 (1.25 to 2.53) and 0.67 (0.46 to 0.98). Multivariable analysis showed that post-exertion oxygen saturation was not a significant predictor of adverse outcome when baseline clinical assessment was taken into account (p=0.368). Secondary analysis excluding patients in whom post-exertion measurement appeared inappropriate resulted in a c-statistic of 0.699 (0.581 to 0.817), likelihood ratios of 1.98 (1.26 to 3.10) and 0.61 (0.35 to 1.07), and some evidence of additional prognostic value on multivariable analysis (p=0.019).ConclusionsPost-exertion oxygen saturation provides modest prognostic information in the assessment of selected patients attending the emergency department with suspected COVID-19.Trial registration numberISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN56149622) http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN28342533.

Download Full-text

Post-exertion oxygen saturation as a prognostic factor for adverse outcome in patients attending the emergency department with suspected COVID-19: Observational cohort study

10.1101/2020.08.10.20171033 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Steve Goodacre ◽

Ben Thomas ◽

Ellen Lee ◽

Laura Sutton ◽

Katie Biggs ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Emergency Department ◽

Cohort Study ◽

Oxygen Saturation ◽

Adverse Outcome ◽

Multivariable Analysis ◽

Observational Cohort Study ◽

Likelihood Ratios ◽

Hospital Records ◽

C Statistic ◽

Observational Cohort

Background Measurement of post-exertion oxygen saturation has been proposed to assess illness severity in suspected COVID-19 infection. We aimed to determine the accuracy of post-exertional oxygen saturation for predicting adverse outcome in suspected COVID-19. Methods We undertook an observational cohort study across 70 emergency departments during first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. We collected data prospectively, using a standardised assessment form, and retrospectively, using hospital records, from patients with suspected COVID-19, and reviewed hospital records at 30 days for adverse outcome (death or receiving organ support). Patients with post-exertion oxygen saturation recorded were selected for this analysis. Results We analysed data from 817 patients with post-exertion oxygen saturation recorded after excluding 54 in whom measurement appeared unfeasible. The c-statistic for post-exertion change in oxygen saturation was 0.589 (95% confidence interval 0.465 to 0.713), and the positive and negative likelihood ratios of a 3% or more desaturation were respectively 1.78 (1.25 to 2.53) and 0.67 (0.46 to 0.98). Multivariable analysis showed that post-exertion oxygen saturation was not a significant predictor of adverse outcome when baseline clinical assessment was taken into account (p=0.368). Secondary analysis excluding patients in whom post-exertion measurement appeared inappropriate resulted in a c-statistic of 0.699 (0.581 to 0.817), likelihood ratios of 1.98 (1.26 to 3.10) and 0.61 (0.35 to 1.07), and some evidence of additional prognostic value on multivariable analysis (p=0.019). Conclusions Post-exertion oxygen saturation provides modest prognostic information in the assessment of patients attending the emergency department with suspected COVID-19.

Download Full-text