Dataset Information

Clinical prediction rule for SARS-CoV-2 infection from 116 U.S. emergency departments 2-22-2021.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Accurate and reliable criteria to rapidly estimate the probability of infection with the novel coronavirus-2 that causes the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) and associated disease (COVID-19) remain an urgent unmet need, especially in emergency care. The objective was to derive and validate a clinical prediction score for SARS-CoV-2 infection that uses simple criteria widely available at the point of care.

Methods

Data came from the registry data from the national REgistry of suspected COVID-19 in EmeRgency care (RECOVER network) comprising 116 hospitals from 25 states in the US. Clinical variables and 30-day outcomes were abstracted from medical records of 19,850 emergency department (ED) patients tested for SARS-CoV-2. The criterion standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 required a positive molecular test from a swabbed sample or positive antibody testing within 30 days. The prediction score was derived from a 50% random sample (n = 9,925) using unadjusted analysis of 107 candidate variables as a screening step, followed by stepwise forward logistic regression on 72 variables.

Results

Multivariable regression yielded a 13-variable score, which was simplified to a 13-point score: +1 point each for age>50 years, measured temperature>37.5°C, oxygen saturation<95%, Black race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, household contact with known or suspected COVID-19, patient reported history of dry cough, anosmia/dysgeusia, myalgias or fever; and -1 point each for White race, no direct contact with infected person, or smoking. In the validation sample (n = 9,975), the probability from logistic regression score produced an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.79-0.81), and this level of accuracy was retained across patients enrolled from the early spring to summer of 2020. In the simplified score, a score of zero produced a sensitivity of 95.6% (94.8-96.3%), specificity of 20.0% (19.0-21.0%), negative likelihood ratio of 0.22 (0.19-0.26). Increasing points on the simplified score predicted higher probability of infection (e.g., >75% probability with +5 or more points).

Conclusion

Criteria that are available at the point of care can accurately predict the probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These criteria could assist with decisions about isolation and testing at high throughput checkpoints.

SUBMITTER: Kline JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7946184 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical prediction rule for SARS-CoV-2 infection from 116 U.S. emergency departments 2-22-2021.

Kline Jeffrey A JA Camargo Carlos A CA Courtney D Mark DM Kabrhel Christopher C Nordenholz Kristen E KE Aufderheide Thomas T Baugh Joshua J JJ Beiser David G DG Bennett Christopher L CL Bledsoe Joseph J Castillo Edward E Chisolm-Straker Makini M Goldberg Elizabeth M EM House Hans H House Stacey S Jang Timothy T Lim Stephen C SC Madsen Troy E TE McCarthy Danielle M DM Meltzer Andrew A Moore Stephen S Newgard Craig C Pagenhardt Justine J Pettit Katherine L KL Pulia Michael S MS Puskarich Michael A MA Southerland Lauren T LT Sparks Scott S Turner-Lawrence Danielle D Vrablik Marie M Wang Alfred A Weekes Anthony J AJ Westafer Lauren L Wilburn John J

PloS one 20210310 3

<h4>Objectives</h4>Accurate and reliable criteria to rapidly estimate the probability of infection with the novel coronavirus-2 that causes the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) and associated disease (COVID-19) remain an urgent unmet need, especially in emergency care. The objective was to derive and validate a clinical prediction score for SARS-CoV-2 infection that uses simple criteria widely available at the point of care.<h4>Methods</h4>Data came from the registry data from the ...[more]

PMID: 33690722

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare spending in the emergency department (ED) setting has received intense focus from policymakers in the United States (U.S.). Relatively few studies have systematically evaluated ED spending over time or disaggregated ED spending by policy-relevant groups, including health condition, age, sex, and payer to inform these discussions. This study's objective is to estimate ED spending trends in the U.S. from 2006 to 2016, by age, sex, payer, and across 154 health conditions and assess ED spending per visit over time.Methods and findingsThis observational study utilized the National Emergency Department Sample, a nationally representative sample of hospital-based ED visits in the U.S. to measure healthcare spending for ED care. All spending estimates were adjusted for inflation and presented in 2016 U.S. Dollars. Overall ED spending was $79.2 billion (CI, $79.2 billion-$79.2 billion) in 2006 and grew to $136.6 billion (CI, $136.6 billion-$136.6 billion) in 2016, representing a population-adjusted annualized rate of change of 4.4% (CI, 4.4%-4.5%) as compared to total healthcare spending (1.4% [CI, 1.4%-1.4%]) during that same ten-year period. The percentage of U.S. health spending attributable to the ED has increased from 3.9% (CI, 3.9%-3.9%) in 2006 to 5.0% (CI, 5.0%-5.0%) in 2016. Nearly equal parts of ED spending in 2016 was paid by private payers (49.3% [CI, 49.3%-49.3%]) and public payers (46.9% [CI, 46.9%-46.9%]), with the remainder attributable to out-of-pocket spending (3.9% [CI, 3.9%-3.9%]). In terms of key groups, the majority of ED spending was allocated among females (versus males) and treat-and-release patients (versus those hospitalized); those between age 20-44 accounted for a plurality of ED spending. Road injuries, falls, and urinary diseases witnessed the highest levels of ED spending, accounting for 14.1% (CI, 13.1%-15.1%) of total ED spending in 2016. ED spending per visit also increased over time from $660.0 (CI, $655.1-$665.2) in 2006 to $943.2 (CI, $934.3-$951.6) in 2016, or at an annualized rate of 3.4% (CI, 3.3%-3.4%).ConclusionsThough ED spending accounts for a relatively small portion of total health system spending in the U.S., ED spending is sizable and growing. Understanding which diseases are driving this spending is helpful for informing value-based reforms that can impact overall health care costs.

Project description:To optimize the identification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-infected children, specimen collection and testing method are crucial considerations. Ideally, specimen collection is easy and causes minimal discomfort, and the laboratory approach is simple, accurate, and rapid. In this prospective cohort study we evaluated the accuracy of a point-of care nucleic acid device using caregiver/patient self-collected buccal swabs. Participants were recruited in 14 Canadian tertiary care pediatric emergency departments. Children <18 years of age deemed to require SARS-CoV-2 testing were eligible. Caregivers or the patient-collected buccal swabs which were tested on the ABBOTT ID NOW. The reference standard was nasopharyngeal swab specimens collected by a healthcare provider tested via laboratory reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR). We enrolled 2,640 study participants and 14.4% (381/2,640) were SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive. Eight percent (223/2,640) and 85.0% (2,244/2,640) were concordant test-positive and concordant test-negative, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of the investigational approach were 58.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 53.4, 63.5] and 99.3% (95% CI: 98.9, 99.6), respectively. Cycle threshold values were lower among concordant [median 17 (15, 21)] relative to discordant [median 30 (22, 35)] swabs (P < 0.001). Sensitivity was greatest among children <4 years of age, when caregivers performed the swabs, among unvaccinated children, and those with shorter symptom duration. Across multiple pain measures, less pain was associated with buccal swab testing. Although accuracy of the buccal swab point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 test was good and negative agreement was excellent, sensitivity was only 58.5%. Concordance was greater among those with higher viral loads, and the approach involving buccal swabs was less painful.IMPORTANCETo optimize the identification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-infected children, specimen collection and testing method are crucial considerations. Ideally, specimen collection is easy and causes minimal discomfort, and laboratory approach is simple, accurate, and rapid. We evaluated the accuracy and pain associated with buccal swab specimen collection by caregivers or children themselves who were tested using a point-of-care isothermal nucleic acid amplification SARS-CoV-2 test. This novel approach was compared to nasopharyngeal swab specimens tested using laboratory-based PCR tests. While negative agreement was excellent, positive percent agreement was less than 60%. Concordance was greater among those with higher viral loads, and thus, sensitivity is excellent when transmissibility is more likely to occur. Importantly, the approach involving buccal swabs was significantly less painful, and thus, children and their caregivers are more likely to agree to testing using such an approach.CLINICAL TRIALSRegistered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05040763).

Project description:ObjectivesThe objectives of this study were to determine concordance of emergency department (ED) management of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with guideline recommendations and to identify ED and patient characteristics predictive of higher guideline concordance.MethodsThe authors conducted a chart review study of ED AMI care as part of the National Emergency Department Safety Study (NEDSS). Using a primary hospital discharge diagnosis of AMI (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM], codes 410.XX), a random sample of ED visits for AMI in 58 urban EDs across 20 U.S. states between 2003 and 2006 were identified. Concordance with American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline recommendations was evaluated using five individual quality measures and a composite concordance score. Concordance scores were calculated as the percentage of eligible patients who received guidelines-recommended care. These percentage scores were rescaled from 0 to 100, with 100 indicating perfect concordance.ResultsThe cohort consisted of 3,819 subjects; their median age was 65 years, and 62% were men. The mean (± standard deviation [SD]) ED composite concordance score was 61 ± 8), with a broad range of values (42 to 84). Except for aspirin use (mean concordance, 82), ED concordance scores were low (beta-blocker use, 56; timely electrocardiogram [ECG], 41; timely fibrinolytic therapy, 26; timely ED disposition for primary percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] candidates, 43). In multivariable analyses, older age (beta-coefficient per 10-year increase, -1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.4 to -0.5) and southern EDs (beta-coefficient, -5.2; 95% CI = -9.6 to -0.9) were associated with lower guideline concordance, whereas ST-segment elevation on initial ED ECG was associated with higher guideline concordance (beta-coefficient, 3.6; 95% CI = 1.5 to 5.7).ConclusionsOverall ED concordance with guideline-recommended processes of care was low to moderate. Emergency physicians should continue to work with other stakeholders in AMI care, such as emergency medical services (EMS) and cardiologists, to develop strategies to improve care processes.

Project description:ImportanceSevere outcomes among youths with SARS-CoV-2 infections are poorly characterized.ObjectiveTo estimate the proportion of children with severe outcomes within 14 days of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 in an emergency department (ED).Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective cohort study with 14-day follow-up enrolled participants between March 2020 and June 2021. Participants were youths aged younger than 18 years who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection at one of 41 EDs across 10 countries including Argentina, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Italy, New Zealand, Paraguay, Singapore, Spain, and the United States. Statistical analysis was performed from September to October 2021.ExposuresAcute SARS-CoV-2 infection was determined by nucleic acid (eg, polymerase chain reaction) testing.Main outcomes and measuresSevere outcomes, a composite measure defined as intensive interventions during hospitalization (eg, inotropic support, positive pressure ventilation), diagnoses indicating severe organ impairment, or death.ResultsAmong 3222 enrolled youths who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, 3221 (>99.9%) had index visit outcome data available, 2007 (62.3%) were from the United States, 1694 (52.6%) were male, and 484 (15.0%) had a self-reported chronic illness; the median (IQR) age was 3 (0-10) years. After 14 days of follow-up, 735 children (22.8% [95% CI, 21.4%-24.3%]) were hospitalized, 107 (3.3% [95% CI, 2.7%-4.0%]) had severe outcomes, and 4 children (0.12% [95% CI, 0.03%-0.32%]) died. Characteristics associated with severe outcomes included being aged 5 to 18 years (age 5 to <10 years vs <1 year: odds ratio [OR], 1.60 [95% CI, 1.09-2.34]; age 10 to <18 years vs <1 year: OR, 2.39 [95% CI 1.38-4.14]), having a self-reported chronic illness (OR, 2.34 [95% CI, 1.59-3.44]), prior episode of pneumonia (OR, 3.15 [95% CI, 1.83-5.42]), symptoms starting 4 to 7 days prior to seeking ED care (vs starting 0-3 days before seeking care: OR, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.29-3.82]), and country (eg, Canada vs US: OR, 0.11 [95% CI, 0.05-0.23]; Costa Rica vs US: OR, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.05-2.96]; Spain vs US: OR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.27-0.98]). Among a subgroup of 2510 participants discharged home from the ED after initial testing and who had complete follow-up, 50 (2.0%; 95% CI, 1.5%-2.6%) were eventually hospitalized and 12 (0.5%; 95% CI, 0.3%-0.8%) had severe outcomes. Compared with hospitalized SARS-CoV-2-negative youths, the risk of severe outcomes was higher among hospitalized SARS-CoV-2-positive youths (risk difference, 3.9%; 95% CI, 1.1%-6.9%).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, approximately 3% of SARS-CoV-2-positive youths tested in EDs experienced severe outcomes within 2 weeks of their ED visit. Among children discharged home from the ED, the risk was much lower. Risk factors such as age, underlying chronic illness, and symptom duration may be useful to consider when making clinical care decisions.

Project description:IntroductionWe assess trends in opioid administration and prescribing from 2005-2015 in older adults in United States (U.S.) emergency departments (ED).MethodsWe analyzed data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) survey from 2005 to 2015. ED visits for painful conditions were selected and stratified by age (18-64, 65-74, 75-84, ≥ 85 years). We analyzed trends in opioid administration in the ED and prescribing at discharge to encounters ≥ 65 and assessed predictors of use using survey-weighted chi-square tests and logistic regression. Trends in the use of five commonly prescribed opioids were also explored.ResultsOpioid administration in the ED and prescribing at discharge for encounters with patients ≥ 65 years fell overall, but not significantly. By contrast, opioid administration in the ED and prescribing at discharge significantly declined for adult encounters 18-64 by 20% and 32%, respectively. A similar proportion of adult encounters ≥ 65 were administered opioids in the ED as 18-64, but adult encounters ≥ 85 had the lowest rates of administration. A smaller proportion of adult encounters ≥ 65 years with painful conditions were prescribed opioids at discharge compared to <65. However, this age-related disparity in prescribing narrowed over the study period. There were shifts in the specific types of opioids administered and prescribed in adult encounters ≥ 65 years over the study period, with the most notable being a 76% increase in hydromorphone administration comparing 2005-06 to 2014-15.ConclusionFrom 2005-15, 1 in 4 to 1 in 10 ED patients with painful conditions were administered or prescribed an opioid in U.S. EDs. Opioids prescribing increased from 2005-11 and then declined from 2012-15, more so among visits in the 18-64 age group compared to ≥ 65 years. Opioid administrating demonstrated a gradual rise and decline in all adult age groups. Age consistently appears to be an important consideration, where opioid prescribing declines with advancing age. Given the nationwide opioid crisis, ED providers should remain vigilant in limiting opioids, particularly in older adults who are at higher risk for adverse effects.

Dataset Information

Clinical prediction rule for SARS-CoV-2 infection from 116 U.S. emergency departments 2-22-2021.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Clinical prediction rule for SARS-CoV-2 infection from 116 U.S. emergency departments 2-22-2021.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets