RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Prognostic accuracy of emergency department triage tools for adults with suspected COVID-19: The PRIEST observational cohort study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.09.02.20185892
DO 10.1101/2020.09.02.20185892
A1 Ben Thomas
A1 Steve Goodacre
A1 Ellen Lee
A1 Laura Sutton
A1 Amanda Loban
A1 Simon Waterhouse
A1 Richard Simmonds
A1 Katie Biggs
A1 Carl Marincowitz
A1 Jose Schutter
A1 Sarah Connelly
A1 Elena Sheldon
A1 Jamie Hall
A1 Emma Young
A1 Andrew Bentley
A1 Kirsty Challen
A1 Chris Fitzimmons
A1 Tim Harris
A1 Fiona Lecky
A1 Andrew Lee
A1 Ian Maconochie
A1 Darren Walter
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/07/2020.09.02.20185892.abstract
AB Objectives The World Health Organisation (WHO) and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommend various triage tools to assist decision-making for patients with suspected COVID-19. We aimed to estimate the accuracy of triage tools for predicting severe illness in adults presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected COVID-19 infection.Methods We undertook a mixed prospective and retrospective observational cohort study in 70 EDs across the United Kingdom (UK). We collected data from people attending with suspected COVID-19 between 26 March 2020 and 28 May 2020, and used presenting data to determine the results of assessment with the following triage tools: the WHO algorithm, NEWS2, CURB-65, CRB-65, 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 We analysed data from 20892 adults, of whom 4672 (22.4%) died or received organ support (primary outcome), with 2058 (9.9%) receiving organ support and 2614 (12.5%) 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) 0.70; SFAHP (7-point) 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 (0.96 and 0.95 respectively), at the expense of specificity (0.31 and 0.27 respectively). NEWS2 showed similar sensitivity (0.96) and specificity (0.28) when a lower threshold than recommended was used.Conclusion CURB-65, PMEWS and NEWS2 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.Registration ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN28342533, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN28342533Competing Interest StatementAll authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: grant funding to their employing institutions from the National Institute for Health Research; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.Clinical TrialISRCTN28342533Clinical Protocols http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN28342533 https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/scharr/research/centres/cure/priest https://www.fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/11/46/07 Funding StatementThe PRIEST study was funded by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme (project reference 11/46/07). The funder played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The North West - Haydock Research Ethics Committee gave a favourable opinion on the PAINTED study on 25 June 2012 (reference 12/NW/0303) and on the updated PRIEST study on 23rd March 2020. The Confidentiality Advisory Group of the Health Research Authority granted approval to collect data without patient consent in line with Section 251 of the National Health Service Act 2006. All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAnonymised data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request (contact details on first page). The Confidentiality Advisory Group of the Health Research Authority will need to consider any requests for data to be used for purposes other than those specified in our application, so a data request should be accompanied by explanation of the purpose of the request and justification of the public benefit. We also recommend inclusion of a pre-specified plan of analysis.