Prevalence and risk factors of burden among caregivers of older emergency department patients

The number of older individuals that live independently at home is rising. These older individuals often rely on caregivers who have a similar age and health status. Therefore, caregivers may experience a high burden. We determined the prevalence and associating factors of burden among caregivers of older patients in the emergency department (ED). A cross-sectional study of primary caregivers of patients aged ≥ 70 years visiting the ED of a Dutch teaching hospital was performed. Structured interviews were conducted with patients and their caregivers. Caregiver burden was measured using the caregiver strain index (CSI). Additionally, data from questionnaires and medical records were extracted to determine potential associating factors. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were conducted to identify independent determinants for burden. Seventy-eight caregivers (39%) experienced a high burden. Multivariate analysis showed a significant association between high caregiver burden and patients with cognitive impairment or dependency for instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) and more self-reported hours of care per day. Almost 40% of older patients in the ED have a caregiver who experiences a high burden. Formal assessment in the ED may help provide adequate care to the patients and their caregivers.

Sort and Sieve: Pre-Triage Screening of Patients with Suspected COVID-19 in the Emergency Department

INTRODUCTION

To reduce the risk of nosocomial transmission, suspected COVID-19 patients entering the Emergency Department (ED) were assigned to a high-risk (ED) or low-risk (acute medical unit, AMU) area based on symptoms, travel and contact history. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of our pre-triage screening method and to analyse the characteristics of initially undetected COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational, single centre study. Patients ≥ 18 years visiting the AMU-ED between 17 March and 17 April 2020 were included. Primary outcome was the (correct) number of COVID-19 patients assigned to the AMU or ED.

RESULTS

In total, 1287 patients visited the AMU-ED: 525 (40.8%) AMU, 762 (59.2%) ED. Within the ED group, 304 (64.3%) of 473 tested patients were COVID-19 positive, compared to 13 (46.4%) of 28 tested patients in the AMU group. Our pre-triage screening accuracy was 63.7%. Of the 13 COVID-19 patients who were initially assigned to the AMU, all patients were ≥65 years of age and the majority presented with gastro-intestinal or non-specific symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Older COVID-19 patients presenting with non-specific symptoms were more likely to remain undetected. ED screening protocols should therefore also include non-specific symptoms, particularly in older patients.

Early detection of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 at high risk of clinical deterioration: Utility of emergency department shock index

Background

The COVID-19 outbreak has put an unprecedented strain on Emergency Departments (EDs) and other critical care resources. Early detection of patients that are at high risk of clinical deterioration and require intensive monitoring, is key in ED evaluation and disposition. A rapid and easy risk-stratification tool could aid clinicians in early decision making. The Shock Index (SI: heart rate/systolic blood pressure) proved useful in detecting hemodynamic instability in sepsis and myocardial infarction patients. In this study we aim to determine whether SI is discriminative for ICU admission and in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

Retrospective, observational, single-center study. All patients ≥18 years old who were hospitalized with COVID-19 (defined as: positive result on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test) between March 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020 were included for analysis. Data were collected from electronic medical patient records and stored in a protected database. ED shock index was calculated and analyzed for its discriminative value on in-hospital mortality and ICU admission by a ROC curve analysis.

Results

In total, 411 patients were included. Of all patients 249 (61%) were male. ICU admission was observed in 92 patients (22%). Of these, 37 patients (40%) died in the ICU. Total in-hospital mortality was 28% (114 patients). For in-hospital mortality the optimal cut-off SI ≥ 0.86 was not discriminative (AUC 0.49 (95% CI: 0.43–0.56)), with a sensitivity of 12.3% and specificity of 93.6%. For ICU admission the optimal cut-off SI ≥ 0.57 was also not discriminative (AUC 0.56 (95% CI: 0.49–0.62)), with a sensitivity of 78.3% and a specificity of 34.2%.

Conclusion

In this cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, SI measured at ED presentation was not discriminative for ICU admission and was not useful for early identification of patients at risk of clinical deterioration.