Period prevalence and identification challenges of viral haemorrhagic fever suspect cases in a tertiary referral hospital in Guinea: a cross-sectional, retrospective study of triage and emergency room patient profiles.
Adolescent
Adult
Child
Child, Preschool
Cross-Sectional Studies
Disease Outbreaks
Ebolavirus
/ genetics
Emergency Service, Hospital
Female
Fever
/ diagnosis
Follow-Up Studies
Guinea
/ epidemiology
Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola
/ diagnosis
Humans
Infant
Male
Middle Aged
Prevalence
Retrospective Studies
Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction
Tertiary Care Centers
Triage
/ methods
Young Adult
Ebola
Guinea
Infection prevention and control
Screening
Tertiary hospital
Viral Haemorrhagic fever
West Africa
Journal
BMC infectious diseases
ISSN: 1471-2334
Titre abrégé: BMC Infect Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968551
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Nov 2020
12 Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
08
10
2019
accepted:
31
10
2020
entrez:
13
11
2020
pubmed:
14
11
2020
medline:
24
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A functioning Viral Haemorrhagic Fever (VHF) surveillance system in countries at risk for outbreaks can reduce early transmission in case of an outbreak. Surveillance performance depends on the application of suspect case definitions in daily clinical practice. Recommended suspect case criteria during outbreaks are designed for high sensitivity and include general symptoms, pyrexia, haemorrhage, epidemiological link and unexplained death in patients. Non-outbreak criteria are narrower, relying on the persistence of fever and the presence of haemorrhagic signs. This study ascertains VHF suspect case prevalence based on outbreak and non-outbreak criteria in a Guinean regional hospital for a period of three months. The study further describes clinical trajectories of patients who meet non-outbreak VHF suspect case criteria in order to discuss challenges in their identification. We used cross-sectional data collection at triage and emergency room to record demographic and clinical data of all admitted patients during the study period. For the follow-up study with description of diagnostic trajectories of VHF suspect cases, we used retrospective chart review. The most common symptoms of all patients upon admission were fever, tiredness/weakness and abdominal pain. 686 patients met EVD outbreak criteria, ten adult patients and two paediatric patients met study-specific non-outbreak VHF suspect case criteria. None of the suspect cases was treated as VHF suspect case and none tested positive for malaria upon admission. Their most frequent discharge diagnosis was unspecific gastrointestinal infection. The most common diagnostic measures were haemoglobin level and glycaemia for both adults and for children; of the requested examinations for hospitalized suspect cases, 36% were not executed or obtained. Half of those patients self-discharged against medical advice. Our study shows that the number of VHF suspect cases may vary greatly depending on which suspect case criteria are applied. Identification of VHF suspect cases seems challenging in clinical practice. We suggest that this may be due to the low use of laboratory diagnostics to support certain diagnoses and the non-application of VHF suspect case definitions in clinical practice. Future VHF suspect case management should aim to tackle such challenges in comparable hospital settings.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
A functioning Viral Haemorrhagic Fever (VHF) surveillance system in countries at risk for outbreaks can reduce early transmission in case of an outbreak. Surveillance performance depends on the application of suspect case definitions in daily clinical practice. Recommended suspect case criteria during outbreaks are designed for high sensitivity and include general symptoms, pyrexia, haemorrhage, epidemiological link and unexplained death in patients. Non-outbreak criteria are narrower, relying on the persistence of fever and the presence of haemorrhagic signs.
METHODS
METHODS
This study ascertains VHF suspect case prevalence based on outbreak and non-outbreak criteria in a Guinean regional hospital for a period of three months. The study further describes clinical trajectories of patients who meet non-outbreak VHF suspect case criteria in order to discuss challenges in their identification. We used cross-sectional data collection at triage and emergency room to record demographic and clinical data of all admitted patients during the study period. For the follow-up study with description of diagnostic trajectories of VHF suspect cases, we used retrospective chart review.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The most common symptoms of all patients upon admission were fever, tiredness/weakness and abdominal pain. 686 patients met EVD outbreak criteria, ten adult patients and two paediatric patients met study-specific non-outbreak VHF suspect case criteria. None of the suspect cases was treated as VHF suspect case and none tested positive for malaria upon admission. Their most frequent discharge diagnosis was unspecific gastrointestinal infection. The most common diagnostic measures were haemoglobin level and glycaemia for both adults and for children; of the requested examinations for hospitalized suspect cases, 36% were not executed or obtained. Half of those patients self-discharged against medical advice.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our study shows that the number of VHF suspect cases may vary greatly depending on which suspect case criteria are applied. Identification of VHF suspect cases seems challenging in clinical practice. We suggest that this may be due to the low use of laboratory diagnostics to support certain diagnoses and the non-application of VHF suspect case definitions in clinical practice. Future VHF suspect case management should aim to tackle such challenges in comparable hospital settings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33183252
doi: 10.1186/s12879-020-05573-8
pii: 10.1186/s12879-020-05573-8
pmc: PMC7663860
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
838Références
N Engl J Med. 2015 Apr 9;372(15):1381-4
pubmed: 25853741
Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2001 Winter;1(4):269-81
pubmed: 12653127
Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Jun 15;60(12):1821-4
pubmed: 25770172
N Engl J Med. 2014 Oct 9;371(15):1418-25
pubmed: 24738640
Lancet. 2017 Dec 16;390(10113):2662-2672
pubmed: 29031848
J Infect Dis. 2011 Nov;204 Suppl 3:S810-6
pubmed: 21987756
Emerg Infect Dis. 2017 Nov;23(11):1792-1799
pubmed: 29047428
Lancet Infect Dis. 2019 May;19(5):529-536
pubmed: 30928435
Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Jan 15;62(2):214-9
pubmed: 26354968
Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Apr;18(4):373-375
pubmed: 29582758
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017 Feb 23;11(2):e0005356
pubmed: 28231242
N Engl J Med. 2014 Oct 16;371(16):1481-95
pubmed: 25244186
PLoS One. 2019 Dec 2;14(12):e0224511
pubmed: 31790420
Ann Emerg Med. 2015 Sep;66(3):294-6
pubmed: 26215669
Lancet Infect Dis. 2017 Sep;17(9):e280-e292
pubmed: 28461209
BMC Public Health. 2019 Apr 2;19(1):364
pubmed: 30940125
N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 11;375(6):587-96
pubmed: 27509108
N Engl J Med. 2015 Aug 27;373(9):787-9
pubmed: 26222382
J Glob Infect Dis. 2012 Jan;4(1):69-74
pubmed: 22529631
New Microbiol. 2009 Oct;32(4):359-67
pubmed: 20128442
Soc Sci Med. 2017 Jan;172:89-97
pubmed: 27914936