Prognostic accuracy of triage tools for adults with suspected COVID-19 in a middle-income setting: an observational cohort study

Abstract

Study Objective Tools proposed to triage acuity in suspected COVID-19 in the ED have been derived and validated in higher-income settings during early waves of the pandemic. We estimated the accuracy of seven risk-stratification tools recommended to predict severe illness in the Western Cape, South Africa. Methods An observational cohort study using routinely collected data from EDs across the Western Cape, from the 27th of August 2020 to 11th March 2022 was conducted to assess performance of the PRIEST tool, NEWS2, TEWS, the WHO algorithm, CRB-65, Quick COVID-19 Severity Index and PMEWS in suspected COVID-19. The primary outcome was death or ICU admission. Results Of 446,084 patients, 15,397 patients (3.45%, 95% CI:34% to 35.1%) experienced the primary outcome. Clinical decision-making for inpatient admission achieved a sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.78), specificity 0.88 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.88) and the negative predictive value (NPV) 0.99 (95% CI 0.99 to 0.99). NEWS2, PMEWS and PRIEST tool algorithm identified patients at risk of adverse outcomes at recommended cut-offs with moderate sensitivity (>0.8) and specificity ranging from 0.47 (NEWS2) to 0.65 (PRIEST tool). Use of the tools at recommended thresholds would have more than doubled admissions with only a 0.01% reduction in false negative triage. Conclusion Use of the PRIEST score, NEWS2 and PMEWS at a threshold of a point higher would achieve similar accuracy to current clinical admission decision, with possible gains in transparency and speed of decision-making.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

CM is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Lecturer in Emergency Medicine (Grant Number Not Applicable/NA). This work was supported by the International COVID-19 Data Alliance (ICODA), an initiative funded by the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator and convened by Health Data Research UK.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The study was approved by the University of Cape Town Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC 594/2021), and the Western Cape Health Research Committee (WC_202111_034). All data were deidentified at source before being provided to the research team.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I 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.

Yes

Data Availability

The data used for this study are subject to data sharing agreements with the Western Cape Department of Health which prohibits further sharing of individual level data. The data sets used are obtainable from this organisation subject to necessary authorisations and approvals

留言 (0)

沒有登入
gif