Application of self-assessment triage tool in COVID-19 pandemic (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Nowicka ◽  
Jakub Jaszczak ◽  
Anna Szymanek Pasternak ◽  
Krzysztof Simon

BACKGROUND (-) OBJECTIVE COVID-19 pandemic has sped up the implementation of telehealth solutions in medicine. This paper demonstrates our experiences with the COVID-19 Risk Assessment Tool. We tried to determine who is the user of the web-based COVID-19 triage application and compare this group with the patients of the infectious diseases ward’s admission room to evaluate who could benefit from implementing the COVID-19 online symptom checker as a remote triage solution. METHODS We have analyzed the answers of more than 650 000 people interacting with an online WHO-based triage tool for assessing the probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Based on the presented symptoms, risk factors, and demographics, the tool has assessed if the user’s answers are suggestive of COVID-19 and recommended appropriate action. Subsequently, we have compared “patient profiles” of tool users with patients admitting to the Infectious Diseases Admission Room. RESULTS COVID-19 Risk Assessment tool tended to be used by asymptomatic or oligosymptomatic individuals, which constituted 70.58% of all users. The majority of users were young (67.30% were below 40 years of age) and without significant comorbidities. On the contrary, most admission room patients were symptomatic - symptoms like fever, cough and dyspnea were prevalent in both covid positive and negative patients. COVID-suspected patients in the self-assessment tool presented similar COVID-19 symptoms as those who presented to the admission room. These were: cough (66.51% in self-assessment tool, 59.48% in the admission room, P=.03), fever (57.79% in the self-assessment tool, 62,93% in the admission room, P=.13), and shortness of breath (8.73% in the self-assessment tool vs. 37.50% in the admission room, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS The self-assessment COVID-19 tool, as it served as the means of screening and self-education, did not substitute for the consultation in the admission room for symptomatic patients. It seems that these types of solutions may serve as health information hubs for oligosymptomatic individuals, as well as a way of identifying and advising patients at risk. It fulfils the idea of remote, pre-clinical triage, however, the accuracy and influence on healthcare must be examined in the clinical setting.

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 246-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thom Taylor ◽  
Danielle Altares Sarik ◽  
Daria Salyakina

2012 ◽  
Vol 138 (9) ◽  
pp. 1023-1034 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irem Dikmen ◽  
M. Talat Birgonul ◽  
Joseph H. M. Tah ◽  
Ahmet Hamdi Ozer

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (24) ◽  
pp. 10683-10690
Author(s):  
Xing-Rong Shen ◽  
Jing Chai ◽  
Rui Feng ◽  
Tong-Zhu Liu ◽  
Gui-Xian Tong ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (07) ◽  
pp. 688-694
Author(s):  
Sangeeta Kaur ◽  
Ray Bahado-Singh ◽  
Fred Qafiti

Objective The 6-week postpartum visit (6WPP) is integral in addressing postpartum medical concerns. Failure to attend this routine visit is a measure of suboptimal care. This study aims to identify patients at risk of 6WPP nonadherence by developing a novel point-based risk scoring system. Methods In this retrospective case–control study (n = 587), a randomly selected subgroup, that is, the “test” group (n = 303), was used to develop the model. The remaining patients were used as an independent “validation” group (n = 284) to assess the model performance. Results Five factors were found to correlate with 6WPP nonadherence. Positive correlations include: Medicaid health insurance (odds ratio [OR]: 2.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.38–4.15); prenatal care initiated at ≥ 14 weeks' gestation (OR: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.11–2.96); and maternal age < 24.0 years (OR: 2.02, 95% CI: 1.13–3.61). Factors negatively correlated with nonadherence include: “married” marital status (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.30–0.84) and primiparity (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.30–0.85). The final scoring system demonstrates significant predictive power in both the test and validation groups (respectively, area under the curve = 0.682, p < 0.001 and 0.629, p < 0.001). Conclusion This risk assessment tool relies on routinely collected data, making its implementation simple. Applying it in the clinical setting allows for early, targeted intervention aimed at minimizing 6WPP nonadherence.


2021 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Arphorn ◽  
Teepapipat Lertvarayut ◽  
Kanpitcha Kiatkitroj ◽  
Chalermsiri Theppitak ◽  
Aniruth Manothum ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document