Single-centre studies suggest that successive Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related "lockdown" restrictions in England may have led to significant changes in the characteristics of major trauma ...patients. There is also evidence from other countries that diversion of intensive care capacity and other healthcare resources to treating patients with COVID-19 may have impacted on outcomes for major trauma patients. We aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the number, characteristics, care pathways, and outcomes of major trauma patients presenting to hospitals in England.
We completed an observational cohort study and interrupted time series analysis including all patients eligible for inclusion in England in the national clinical audit for major trauma presenting between 1 January 2017 and 31 of August 2021 (354,202 patients). Demographic characteristics (age, sex, physiology, and injury severity) and clinical pathways of major trauma patients in the first lockdown (17,510 patients) and second lockdown (38,262 patients) were compared to pre-COVID-19 periods in 2018 to 2019 (comparator period 1: 22,243 patients; comparator period 2: 18,099 patients). Discontinuities in trends for weekly estimated excess survival rate were estimated when lockdown measures were introduced using segmented linear regression. The first lockdown had a larger associated reduction in numbers of major trauma patients (-4,733 (21%)) compared to the pre-COVID period than the second lockdown (-2,754 (6.7%)). The largest reductions observed were in numbers of people injured in road traffic collisions excepting cyclists where numbers increased. During the second lockdown, there were increases in the numbers of people injured aged 65 and over (665 (3%)) and 85 and over (828 (9.3%)). In the second week of March 2020, there was a reduction in level of major trauma excess survival rate (-1.71%; 95% CI: -2.76% to -0.66%) associated with the first lockdown. This was followed by a weekly trend of improving survival until the lifting of restrictions in July 2020 (0.25; 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.35). Limitations include eligibility criteria for inclusion to the audit and COVID status of patients not being recorded.
This national evaluation of the impact of COVID on major trauma presentations to English hospitals has observed important public health findings: The large reduction in overall numbers injured has been primarily driven by reductions in road traffic collisions, while numbers of older people injured at home increased over the second lockdown. Future research is needed to better understand the initial reduction in likelihood of survival after major trauma observed with the implementation of the first lockdown.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
We aimed to derive and validate a triage tool, based on clinical assessment alone, for predicting adverse outcome in acutely ill adults with suspected COVID-19 infection.
We undertook a mixed ...prospective and retrospective observational cohort study in 70 emergency departments across the United Kingdom (UK). We collected presenting data from 22445 people attending with suspected COVID-19 between 26 March 2020 and 28 May 2020. The primary outcome was death or organ support (respiratory, cardiovascular, or renal) by record review at 30 days. We split the cohort into derivation and validation sets, developed a clinical score based on the coefficients from multivariable analysis using the derivation set, and the estimated discriminant performance using the validation set.
We analysed 11773 derivation and 9118 validation cases. Multivariable analysis identified that age, sex, respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure, oxygen saturation/inspired oxygen ratio, performance status, consciousness, history of renal impairment, and respiratory distress were retained in analyses restricted to the ten or fewer predictors. We used findings from multivariable analysis and clinical judgement to develop a score based on the NEWS2 score, age, sex, and performance status. This had a c-statistic of 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.79-0.81) in the validation cohort and predicted adverse outcome with sensitivity 0.98 (0.97-0.98) and specificity 0.34 (0.34-0.35) for scores above four points.
A clinical score based on NEWS2, age, sex, and performance status predicts adverse outcome with good discrimination in adults with suspected COVID-19 and can be used to support decision-making in emergency care.
ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN28342533, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN28342533.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Uneven vaccination and less resilient health care systems mean hospitals in LMICs are at risk of being overwhelmed during periods of increased COVID-19 infection. Risk-scores proposed for rapid ...triage of need for admission from the emergency department (ED) have been developed in higher-income settings during initial waves of the pandemic.
Routinely collected data for public hospitals in the Western Cape, South Africa from the 27th August 2020 to 11th March 2022 were used to derive a cohort of 446,084 ED patients with suspected COVID-19. The primary outcome was death or ICU admission at 30 days. The cohort was divided into derivation and Omicron variant validation sets. We developed the LMIC-PRIEST score based on the coefficients from multivariable analysis in the derivation cohort and existing triage practices. We externally validated accuracy in the Omicron period and a UK cohort.
We analysed 305,564 derivation, 140,520 Omicron and 12,610 UK validation cases. Over 100 events per predictor parameter were modelled. Multivariable analyses identified eight predictor variables retained across models. We used these findings and clinical judgement to develop a score based on South African Triage Early Warning Scores and also included age, sex, oxygen saturation, inspired oxygen, diabetes and heart disease. The LMIC-PRIEST score achieved C-statistics: 0.82 (95% CI: 0.82 to 0.83) development cohort; 0.79 (95% CI: 0.78 to 0.80) Omicron cohort; and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.79 to 0.80) UK cohort. Differences in prevalence of outcomes led to imperfect calibration in external validation. However, use of the score at thresholds of three or less would allow identification of very low-risk patients (NPV ≥0.99) who could be rapidly discharged using information collected at initial assessment.
The LMIC-PRIEST score shows good discrimination and high sensitivity at lower thresholds and can be used to rapidly identify low-risk patients in LMIC ED settings.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) head injury guidelines on deaths and hospital admissions caused by traumatic brain injury (TBI).SettingAll ...hospitals in England between 1998 and 2017.ParticipantsPatients admitted to hospital or who died up to 30 days following hospital admission with International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding indicating the reason for admission or death was TBI.InterventionAn interrupted time series analysis was conducted with intervention points when each of the three guidelines was introduced. Analysis was stratified by guideline recommendation specific age groups (0–15, 16–64 and 65+).Outcome measuresThe monthly population mortality and admission rates for TBI.Study designAn interrupted time series analysis using complete Office of National Statistics cause of death data linked to hospital episode statistics for inpatient admissions in England.ResultsThe monthly TBI mortality and admission rates in the 65+ age group increased from 0.5 to 1.5 and 10 to 30 per 100 000 population, respectively. The increasing mortality rate was unaffected by the introduction of any of the guidelines.The introduction of the second NICE head injury guideline was associated with a significant reduction in the monthly TBI mortality rate in the 16–64 age group (-0.005; 95% CI: −0.002 to −0.007).In the 0–15 age group the TBI mortality rate fell from around 0.05 to 0.01 per 100 000 population and this trend was unaffected by any guideline.ConclusionThe introduction of NICE head injury guidelines was associated with a reduced admitted TBI mortality rate after specialist care was recommended for severe TBI. The improvement was solely observed in patients aged 16–64 years.The cause of the observed increased admission and mortality rates in those 65+ and potential treatments for TBI in this age group require further investigation.
Hospital emergency departments play a crucial role in the initial assessment and management of suspected COVID-19 infection. This needs to be guided by studies of people presenting with suspected ...COVID-19, including those admitted and discharged, and those who do not ultimately have COVID-19 confirmed. We aimed to characterise patients attending emergency departments with suspected COVID-19, including subgroups based on sex, ethnicity and COVID-19 test results.
We undertook a mixed prospective and retrospective observational cohort study in 70 emergency departments across the United Kingdom (UK). We collected presenting data from 22445 people attending with suspected COVID-19 between 26 March 2020 and 28 May 2020. Outcomes were admission to hospital, COVID-19 result, organ support (respiratory, cardiovascular or renal), and death, by record review at 30 days. Mean age was 58.4 years, 11200 (50.4%) were female and 11034 (49.6%) male. Adults (age >16 years) were acutely unwell (median NEWS2 score of 4), frequently had limited performance status (46.9%) and had high rates of admission (67.1%), COVID-19 positivity (31.2%), organ support (9.8%) and death (15.5%). Children had much lower rates of admission (27.4%), COVID-19 positivity (1.2%), organ support (1.4%) and death (0.3%). Similar numbers of men and women presented to the ED, but men were more likely to be admitted (72.9% v 61.4%), require organ support (12.2% v 7.7%) and die (18.2% v 13.0%). Black or Asian adults tended to be younger than White adults (median age 54, 50 and 67 years), were less likely to have impaired performance status (43.1%, 26.8% and 51.6%), be admitted to hospital (60.8%, 57.3%, 69.6%) or die (11.6%, 11.2%, 16.4%), but were more likely to require organ support (15.9%, 14.3%, 8.9%) or have a positive COVID-19 test (40.8%, 42.1%, 30.0%). Adults admitted with suspected and confirmed COVID-19 had similar age, performance status and comorbidities (except chronic lung disease) to those who did not have COVID-19 confirmed, but were much more likely to need organ support (22.2% v 8.9%) or die (32.1% v 15.5%).
Important differences exist between patient groups presenting to the emergency department with suspected COVID-19. Adults and children differ markedly and require different approaches to emergency triage. Admission and adverse outcome rates among adults suggest that policies to avoid unnecessary ED attendance achieved their aim. Subsequent COVID-19 confirmation confers a worse prognosis and greater need for organ support.
ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN56149622, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN28342533.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
The proportion of adults older than 65 years is rapidly increasing. Care home residents in this age group have disproportionate rates of transfer to the Emergency Department (ED) and around 40% of ...attendances might be avoidable. We did a systematic review to identify factors that predict ED transfer from care homes. Six electronic databases were searched. Observational studies that provided estimates of association between ED attendance and variables at a resident or care home level were included. 26 primary studies met the inclusion criteria. Seven common domains of factors assessed for association with ED transfer were identified and within these domains, male sex, age, presence of specific comorbidities, polypharmacy, rural location, and care home quality rating were associated with likelihood of ED transfer. The identification of these factors provides useful information for policy makers and researchers intending to either develop interventions to reduce hospitalisations or use adjusted rates of hospitalisation as a care home quality indicator.
Background
Care homes predominantly care for older people with complex health and care needs, who are at high risk of unplanned hospital admissions. While often necessary, such admissions can be ...distressing and provide an opportunity cost as well as a financial cost.
Objectives
Our objective was to update a 2014 evidence review of interventions to reduce unplanned admissions of care home residents. We carried out a systematic review of interventions used in the UK and other high-income countries by synthesising evidence of effects of these interventions on hospital admissions; feasibility and acceptability; costs and value for money; and factors affecting applicability of international evidence to UK settings.
Data sources
We searched the following databases in December 2021 for studies published since 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; Health Management Information Consortium; Medline; PsycINFO; Science and Social Sciences Citation Indexes; Social Care Online; and Social Service Abstracts. ‘Grey’ literature (January 2022) and citations were searched and reference lists were checked.
Methods
We included studies of any design reporting interventions delivered in care homes (with or without nursing) or hospitals to reduce unplanned hospital admissions. A taxonomy of interventions was developed from an initial scoping search. Outcomes of interest included measures of effect on unplanned admissions among care home residents; barriers/facilitators to implementation in a UK setting and acceptability to care home residents, their families and staff. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. We used published frameworks to extract data on intervention characteristics, implementation barriers/facilitators and applicability of international evidence. We performed a narrative synthesis grouped by intervention type and setting. Overall strength of evidence for admission reduction was assessed using a framework based on study design, study numbers and direction of effect.
Results
We included 124 publications/reports (30 from the UK). Integrated care and quality improvement programmes providing additional support to care homes (e.g. the English Care Homes Vanguard initiatives and hospital-based services in Australia) appeared to reduce unplanned admissions relative to usual care. Simpler training and staff development initiatives showed mixed results, as did interventions aimed at tackling specific problems (e.g. medication review). Advance care planning was key to the success of most quality improvement programmes but do-not-hospitalise orders were problematic. Qualitative research identified tensions affecting decision-making involving paramedics, care home staff and residents/family carers. The best way to reduce end-of-life admissions through access to palliative care was unclear in the face of inconsistent and generally low-quality evidence.
Conclusions
Effective implementation of interventions at various stages of residents’ care pathways may reduce unplanned admissions. Most interventions are complex and require adaptation to local contexts. Work at the interface between health and social care is key to successful implementation.
Limitations
Much of the evidence identified was of low quality because of factors such as uncontrolled study designs and small sample size. Meta-analysis was not possible.
Future work
We identified a need for improved economic evidence and the evaluation of integrated care models of the type delivered by hospital-based teams. Researchers should carefully consider what is realistic in terms of study design and data collection given the current context of extreme pressure on care homes.
Study registration
This study is registered as PROSPERO database CRD42021289418.
Funding
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (award number NIHR133884) and will be published in full in
Health and Social Care Delivery Research
; Vol. 11, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Previous studies deriving and validating triage scores for patients with suspected COVID-19 in Emergency Department settings have been conducted in high- or middle-income settings. We assessed eight ...triage scores’ accuracy for death or organ support in patients with suspected COVID-19 in Sudan.
We conducted an observational cohort study using Covid-19 registry data from eight emergency unit isolation centres in Khartoum State, Sudan. We assessed performance of eight triage scores including: PRIEST, LMIC-PRIEST, NEWS2, TEWS, the WHO algorithm, CRB-65, Quick COVID-19 Severity Index and PMEWS in suspected COVID-19. A composite primary outcome included death, ventilation or ICU admission.
In total 874 (33.84 %, 95 % CI:32.04 % to 35.69 %) of 2,583 patients died, required intubation/non-invasive ventilation or HDU/ICU admission . All risk-stratification scores assessed had worse estimated discrimination in this setting, compared to studies conducted in higher-income settings: C-statistic range for primary outcome: 0.56–0.64. At previously recommended thresholds NEWS2, PRIEST and LMIC-PRIEST had high estimated sensitivities (≥0.95) for the primary outcome. However, the high baseline risk meant that low-risk patients identified at these thresholds still had a between 8 % and 17 % risk of death, ventilation or ICU admission.
None of the triage scores assessed demonstrated sufficient accuracy to be used clinically. This is likely due to differences in the health care system and population (23 % of patients died) compared to higher-income settings in which the scores were developed. Risk-stratification scores developed in this setting are needed to provide the necessary accuracy to aid triage of patients with suspected COVID-19.
COVID-19 infection rates remain high in South Africa. Clinical prediction models may be helpful for rapid triage, and supporting clinical decision making, for patients with suspected COVID-19 ...infection. The Western Cape, South Africa, has integrated electronic health care data facilitating large-scale linked routine datasets. The aim of this study was to develop a machine learning model to predict adverse outcome in patients presenting with suspected COVID-19 suitable for use in a middle-income setting. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using linked, routine data, from patients presenting with suspected COVID-19 infection to public-sector emergency departments (EDs) in the Western Cape, South Africa between 27th August 2020 and 31
st
October 2021. The primary outcome was death or critical care admission at 30 days. An XGBoost machine learning model was trained and internally tested using split-sample validation. External validation was performed in 3 test cohorts: Western Cape patients presenting during the Omicron COVID-19 wave, a UK cohort during the ancestral COVID-19 wave, and a Sudanese cohort during ancestral and Eta waves. A total of 282,051 cases were included in a complete case training dataset. The prevalence of 30-day adverse outcome was 4.0%. The most important features for predicting adverse outcome were the requirement for supplemental oxygen, peripheral oxygen saturations, level of consciousness and age. Internal validation using split-sample test data revealed excellent discrimination (C-statistic 0.91, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.91) and calibration (CITL of 1.05). The model achieved C-statistics of 0.84 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.85), 0.72 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.73), and 0.62, (95% CI 0.59 to 0.65) in the Omicron, UK, and Sudanese test cohorts. Results were materially unchanged in sensitivity analyses examining missing data. An XGBoost machine learning model achieved good discrimination and calibration in prediction of adverse outcome in patients presenting with suspected COVID19 to Western Cape EDs. Performance was reduced in temporal and geographical external validation.
ObjectivesSettings in identifying need for emergency care amongst those with suspected COVID-19 infection and identify factors which affect triage accuracy.
ApproachAn observational cohort study of ...adults who contacted the NHS 111 telephone triage service provided by Yorkshire Ambulance Service between March and June 2020 with symptoms indicating possible COVID-19 infection. Patient-level data encompassing triage call, primary care, hospital care and death registration records relating to 40,261 adults were linked.
The accuracy of triage outcome (self-care/non-urgent assessment versus ambulance/urgent assessment) was assessed for death or organ support 30 days from first contact. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with risk of false negative or false positive triage.
ResultsCallers had a 3% (1,200/40,261) risk of serious adverse outcomes. Telephone triage recommended self-care or non-urgent assessment for 60% (24,335/40,261), with a 1.3% (310/24,335) risk of adverse outcomes 30 days from first contact. Telephone triage had 74.2% sensitivity (95% CI: 71.6 to 76.6%) and 61.5% specificity (61% to 62%) for the primary outcome. Analysis suggested respiratory comorbidities may be over-appreciated and diabetes under-appreciated as predictors of deterioration. Repeat contact with triage service appears to be an important under-recognised predictor of deterioration.
ConclusionPatients advised to self-care or receive non-urgent clinical assessment had a small but non-negligible risk of serious clinical deterioration. Repeat contact with telephone services needs recognition as an important predictor of subsequent adverse outcomes.
PDF
