Performance of three screening tools to predict COVID-19 positivity in emergency department patients

• Published in: Emergency medicine journal : EMJ Vol. 40; no. 3; pp. 210 - 215
• Main Authors: DiLorenzo, Madeline A, Davis, Megan R, Dugas, Julianne N, Nelson, Kerrie P, Hochberg, Natasha S, Ingalls, Robin R, Mishuris, Rebecca Grochow, Schechter-Perkins, Elissa M
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and the British Association for Accident & Emergency Medicine 01.03.2023; BMJ Publishing Group LTD
• Subjects: clinical assessment; COVID-19; COVID-19 diagnostic tests; COVID-19 Testing; diagnosis; Disease transmission; Emergency medical care; Emergency Service, Hospital; Fever; Headaches; Hospitals; Humans; Infections; Medical diagnosis; Medical ethics; Medical records; Medicine; Nursing; Original research; Patients; Reactive Oxygen Species; Retrospective Studies; Sensitivity and Specificity; New York; United States > US; COVID-19; infections; diagnosis; clinical assessment
• ISSN: 1472-0205; 1472-0213
• DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2021-212102

BackgroundCOVID-19 symptoms vary widely. This retrospective study assessed which of three clinical screening tools—a nursing triage screen (NTS), an ED review of systems (ROS) performed by physicians and physician assistants and a standardised ED attending (ie, consultant) physician COVID-19 probability assessment (PA)—best identified patients with COVID-19 on a subsequent reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) confirmation.MethodsAll patients admitted to Boston Medical Center from the ED between 27 April 2020 and 17 May 2020 were included. Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for each method. Logistic regression assessed each tool’s performance.ResultsThe attending physician PA had higher sensitivity (0.62, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.71) than the NTS (0.46, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.56) and higher specificity (0.76, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.80) than the NTS (0.71, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.75) and ED ROS (0.62, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.67). Categorisation as moderate or high probability on the ED physician PA was associated with the highest odds of having COVID-19 in regression analyses (adjusted OR=4.61, 95% CI 3.01 to 7.06). All methods had a low PPV (ranging from 0.26 for the ED ROS to 0.40 for the attending physician PA) and a similar NPV (0.84 for both the NTS and the ED ROS, and 0.89 for the attending physician PA).ConclusionThe ED attending PA had higher sensitivity and specificity than the other two methods, but none was accurate enough to replace a COVID-19 RT-PCR test in a clinical setting where transmission control is crucial. Therefore, we recommend universal COVID-19 testing prior to all admissions.