Genesis, evolution and effectiveness of Singapore's national sorting logic and home recovery policies in handling the COVID-19 Delta and Omicron waves

Singapore developed several novel strategies to transition towards "living with COVID-19", while protecting hospital capacity. The Home Recovery Programme (HRP) was a national, centrally-administered programme that leveraged technology and telemedicine to allow low-risk individuals to safely recover at home. The HRP was subsequently expanded by partnering primary care doctors in caring for more cases in the community. A key enabler was the National Sorting Logic (NSL), a multi-step triage algorithm allowing risk-stratification of large numbers of COVID-19 patients at a national-level. At the core of the NSL was a risk assessment criterion, comprising of Comorbidities-of-concern, Age, Vaccination status, Examination/clinical findings and Symptoms (CAVES). The NSL sorted all COVID-19 cases into the various levels of care – Primary Care, HRP, COVID-19 Treatment Facility and Hospital. By adopting a national approach towards managing healthcare capacities and triaging COVID-19 patients, Singapore was able to prioritize healthcare resources for high-risk individuals and prevent hospital capacities from being overwhelmed. As part of the national response strategy to tackle COVID-19, Singapore set up and integrated key national databases to enable responsive data analysis and support evidence-based policy decisions. Using data collected between 30 August 2021 to 8 June 2022, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate the outcomes and effectiveness of vaccination policies, NSL and home-based recovery. A total of 1,240,183 COVID-19 cases were diagnosed during this period, spanning both Delta and Omicron waves, Overall, Singapore experienced very low severity (0.51%) and mortality (0.11%) rates. Vaccinations significantly lowered severity and mortality risks across all age groups. The NSL was effective in predicting risk of severe outcomes and was able to right-site >93% of cases into home-based recovery. By leveraging high vaccination rates, technology and telemedicine, Singapore was able to safely navigate through two COVID-19 waves without impacting severity/mortality rates nor overwhelming hospital capacities.

Optimal Trauma Activation Criteria for "Found Down" Patients

INTRODUCTION

Patients who are found down (FD) with unknown mechanism of injury pose a triage dilemma. At the study institution, this population with any "suspicion of trauma" criteria were previously triaged as a trauma team activation (TTA) but due to high rates of mis-triage was modified to "signs of trauma." The purpose of this study is to compare injured and uninjured FD patients to identify patient characteristics and outcomes, and to evaluate triage accuracy of signs of trauma.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective review was conducted on adult patients who were FD between 1/2019 and 4/2021. Based on injury severity score (ISS), FD patients were categorized as injured or uninjured and these groups were compared. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for signs and suspicion of trauma as triage criteria, where suspicion of trauma included altered mental status, confusion, seizures, intoxication, or dementia. Signs of trauma were defined as abrasions, lacerations, ecchymosis, contusions, hematomas, deformity, pain, and crepitus.

RESULTS

415 FD patients were identified with 273 (65.8%) sustaining injury and 142 (34.2%) uninjured. There were no differences in age, gender, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, or vital signs. Signs of trauma had high sensitivity (96.0%) and moderate specificity (82.4%) for injury, whereas suspicion of trauma had low sensitivity (2.2%) and specificity (37.3%).

CONCLUSION

Injured and uninjured FD trauma patients had similar characteristics on arrival including GCS and vitals, emphasizing the challenge of identifying patients with injury requiring trauma evaluation. Signs of trauma represent a valuable indicator of injury in the FD population.

Predictive accuracy of adding shock index to the American College of Surgeons' minimum criteria for full trauma team activation

BACKGROUND

The American College of Surgeons requires trauma centers to use six minimum criteria (ACS-6) for full trauma team activation: hypotension, gunshot wound to the neck or torso, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score < 9, respiratory compromise, transfers receiving blood transfusion, or physician discretion. Our goal was to evaluate the effect of adding varying shock index (SI) thresholds to the ACS-6 in an adult trauma population with the hypothesis that SI would significantly improve sensitivity at the expense of an acceptable decrease in specificity.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of EMS and trauma registry data from an urban Level I trauma center. Consecutive patients > 15 years of age were included from 1993 through 2006. SI at thresholds of ≥0.8, ≥0.85, ≥0.9, and ≥1 were evaluated. Primary outcome was emergency operative (within 1 h of arrival) or procedural (cricothyrotomy or thoracotomy) intervention (EOPI); secondary outcomes were Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15, ISS > 24, a composite of EOPI or ISS > 15, and urgent operative intervention (within 4 h).

RESULTS

A total of 20,872 patients were included, 27% with an ISS > 15 and 5% who underwent EOPI. Sensitivity and specificity of the ACS-6 alone for EOPI were 86% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 84% to 88%) and 81% (95% CI = 80% to 81%), respectively. Inclusion of SI thresholds of 0.8, 0.85, 0.9, and 1 resulted in sensitivities of 95% (95% CI = 93% to 96%), 93% (CI = 91% to 94%), 92% (95% CI = 90% to 93%), and 90% (95% CI = 88% to 92%), respectively, and specificities of 52% (95% CI = 51% to 52%), 59% (95% CI = 58% to 59%), 64% (95% CI = 64% to 65%), and 72% (95% CI = 71% to 73%), respectively. Similar trends were found for each secondary outcome.

CONCLUSION

The addition of SI to the ACS-6 for trauma team activation increased sensitivity for EOPI with a larger decrease in specificity across all thresholds. Inclusion of a SI threshold of ≥0.9 closely aligns with under- and overtriage benchmarks in this trauma registry cohort using a strict definition of trauma team activation need.