Construct validity of acute morbidity as a novel outcome for emergency patients

Prevalence and Prognosis of Fever Symptoms, Hypo-, and Hyperthermia in Unselected Emergency Patients

Assessments of history and body temperature are cornerstones of the diagnostic workup in all patients presenting to emergency departments (ED). Yet, the objective measurement of temperature and the subjective perception of fever can differ. This is a secondary exploratory analysis of a consecutive all-comer study, performed at an adult ED in Switzerland. Trained medical students interviewed all patients if fever was present. Altered temperature (>38.0 °C/<36.0 °C) measured at triage using an ear thermometer was used as the reference standard for diagnostic performance. In case of a disagreement between fever symptoms and altered temperature, discordance was noted. Outcome measures for case severity (acute morbidity, hospitalization, intensive care, and in-hospital mortality) were extracted from the electronic health records. Odds ratios (OR) for discordance between signs and symptoms and outcomes were calculated. Among 2183 patients, 325 patients reported fever symptoms. The sensitivity of fever symptoms as a test for altered temperature was 36.3%. Specificity was 91.5%. The negative predictive value was 84.1%, positive likelihood ratio was 4.2 and negative likelihood ratio was 0.7. The adjusted OR for discordance between fever symptoms and altered temperature was 1.71 (95% CI: 1.2–2.44) for acute morbidity, 1.56 (95% CI: 1.13–2.15) for hospitalization, and 1.12 (95% CI: 0.64–1.59) for intensive care. Unadjusted OR for mortality was 1.5 (95% CI: 0.69–3.25). Fever symptoms and altered temperature broadly overlap, but presentations can be stratified according to concordance between signs and symptoms. In case of discordance, the odds for acute morbidity and hospitalization are increased. Discordance may therefore be further investigated as a red flag for a serious outcome.

The presentational flow chart "unwell adult" of the Manchester Triage System-Curse or blessing?

Background

The presentational flow chart “unwell adult” of the Manchester Triage System (MTS) occupies a special role in this triage system, defined as the nonspecific presentation of an emergency patient. Current scientific studies show that a considerable proportion of emergency room patients present with so-called "nonspecific complaints". The aim of the present study is to investigate in detail the initial assessment of emergency patients triaged according to the presentational flow chart "unwell adult".

Methods

Monocentric, retrospective observational study.

Results

Data on 14,636 emergency department visits between March 12^th and August 12^th, 2019 were included. During the observation period, the presentational flow chart "unwell adult" was used 1,143 times and it was the third most frequently used presentational flow chart. Patients triaged with this flow chart often had unspecific complaints upon admission to the emergency department. Patients triaged with the “unwell adult” chart were often classified with a lower triage level. Notably, patients who died in hospital during the observation period frequently received low triage levels. The AUC for the MTS flow chart “unwell adult” and hospitalization in general for older patients (age ≥ 65 years) was 0.639 (95% CI 0.578–0.701), and 0.730 (95% CI 0.714–0.746) in patients triaged with more specific charts. The AUC for the MTS flow chart “unwell adult” and admission to ICU for older patients (age ≥65 years) was 0.631 (95% CI 0.547–0.715) and 0.807 (95% CI 0.790–0.824) for patients triaged with more specific flow charts. Comparison of the predictive ability of the MTS for in-hospital mortality in the group triaged with the presentational flow chart “unwell adult” revealed an AUC of 0.682 (95% CI 0.595–0.769) vs. 0.834 (95% CI 0.799–0.869) in the other presentational flow charts.

Conclusion

The presentational flow chart "unwell adult" is frequently used by triage nurses for initial assessment of patients. Patient characteristics assessed with the presentational flow chart "unwell adult" differ significantly from those assessed with MTS presentational flow charts for more specific symptoms. The quality of the initial assessment in terms of a well-functioning triage priority assessment tool is less accurate than the performance of the MTS described in the literature.

Emergency department patients with weakness or fatigue: Can physicians predict their outcomes at the front door? A prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Generalized weakness and fatigue are underexplored symptoms in emergency medicine. Triage tools often underestimate patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with these nonspecific symptoms (Nemec et al., 2010). At the same time, physicians' disease severity rating (DSR) on a scale from 0 (not sick at all) to 10 (extremely sick) predicts key outcomes in ED patients (Beglinger et al., 2015; Rohacek et al., 2015). Our goals were (1) to characterize ED patients with weakness and/or fatigue (W|F); to explore (2) to what extent physicians' DSR at triage can predict five key outcomes in ED patients with W|F; (3) how well DSR performs relative to two commonly used benchmark methods, the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI); (4) to what extent DSR provides predictive information beyond ESI, CCI, or their linear combination, i.e., whether ESI and CCI should be used alone or in combination with DSR; and (5) to what extent ESI, CCI, or their linear combination provide predictive information beyond DSR alone, i.e., whether DSR should be used alone or in combination with ESI and / or CCI.

METHODS

Prospective observational study between 2013-2015 (analysis in 2018-2020, study team blinded to hypothesis) conducted at a single center. We study an all-comer cohort of 3,960 patients (48% female patients, median age = 51 years, 94% completed 1-year follow-up). We looked at two primary outcomes (acute morbidity (Bingisser et al., 2017; Weigel et al., 2017) and all-cause 1- year mortality) and three secondary outcomes (in-hospital mortality, hospitalization and transfer to ICU). We assessed the predictive power (i.e., resolution, measured as the Area under the ROC Curve, AUC) of the scores and, using logistic regression, their linear combinations.

FINDINGS

Compared to patients without W|F (n = 3,227), patients with W|F (n = 733) showed higher prevalences for all five outcomes, reported more symptoms across both genders, and received higher DSRs (median = 4; interquartile range (IQR) = 3-6 vs. median = 3; IQR = 2-5). DSR predicted all five outcomes well above chance (i.e., AUCs > ~0.70), similarly well for both patients with and without W|F, and as good as or better than ESI and CCI in patients with and without W|F (except for 1-year mortality where CCI performs better). For acute morbidity, hospitalization, and transfer to ICU there is clear evidence that adding DSR to ESI and/or CCI improves predictions for both patient groups; for 1-year mortality and in-hospital mortality this holds for most, but not all comparisons. Adding ESI and/or CCI to DSR generally did not improve performance or even decreased it.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of physicians' disease severity rating has never been investigated in patients with generalized weakness and fatigue. We show that physicians' prediction of acute morbidity, mortality, hospitalization, and transfer to ICU through their DSR is also accurate in these patients. Across all patients, DSR is less predictive of acute morbidity for female than male patients, however. Future research should investigate how emergency physicians judge their patients' clinical state at triage and how this can be improved and used in simple decision aids.