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


Journal

Emergency medicine journal : EMJ
ISSN: 1472-0213
Titre abrégé: Emerg Med J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100963089

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Aug 2021
Historique:
received: 08 10 2020
accepted: 14 05 2021
pubmed: 5 6 2021
medline: 3 9 2021
entrez: 4 6 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The 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. We 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. We 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. CURB-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. ISRCTN56149622.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The 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.
METHODS METHODS
We 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.
RESULTS RESULTS
We 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.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
CURB-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 NUMBER BACKGROUND
ISRCTN56149622.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34083427
pii: emermed-2020-210783
doi: 10.1136/emermed-2020-210783
pmc: PMC8182747
doi:

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article Multicenter Study Observational Study

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

587-593

Informations de copyright

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interests: None declared.

Auteurs

Ben Thomas (B)

ScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK b.d.thomas@sheffield.ac.uk.

Steve Goodacre (S)

ScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Ellen Lee (E)

ScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Laura Sutton (L)

ScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Matthew Bursnall (M)

ScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Amanda Loban (A)

ScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Simon Waterhouse (S)

ScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Richard Simmonds (R)

ScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Katie Biggs (K)

ScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Carl Marincowitz (C)

ScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

José Schutter (J)

ScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Sarah Connelly (S)

ScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Elena Sheldon (E)

ScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Jamie Hall (J)

ScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Emma Young (E)

ScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Andrew Bentley (A)

Acute intensive Care Unit, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.

Kirsty Challen (K)

Emergency Department, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Chorley, UK.

Chris Fitzsimmons (C)

Sheffield Children's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
Emergency Department, Sheffield Children's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.

Tim Harris (T)

Department of Emergency Medicine, Royal London Hospital, London, UK.

Fiona Lecky (F)

ScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Andrew Lee (A)

ScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Ian Maconochie (I)

Paediatric ED, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.

Darren Walter (D)

Emergency Department, University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH