Performance of scoring systems in selecting short stay medical admissions suitable for assessment in same day emergency care:an analysis of diagnostic accuracy in a UK hospital setting

OBJECTIVES: To assess the performance of the Amb score and Glasgow Admission Prediction Score (GAPS) in identifying acute medical admissions suitable for same day emergency care (SDEC) in a large urban secondary centre. DESIGN: Retrospective assessment of routinely collected data from electronic healthcare records. SETTING: Single large urban tertiary care centre. PARTICIPANTS: All unplanned admissions to general medicine on Monday–Friday, episodes starting 08:00–16:59 hours and lasting up to 48 hours, between 1 April 2019 and 9 March 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of the Amb score and GAPS in identifying patients discharged within 12 hours of arrival. RESULTS: 7365 episodes were assessed. 94.6% of episodes had an Amb score suggesting suitability for SDEC. The positive predictive value of the Amb score in identifying those discharged within 12 hours was 54.5% (95% CI 53.3% to 55.8%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for the Amb score was 0.612 (95% CI 0.599 to 0.625). 42.4% of episodes had a GAPS suggesting suitability for SDEC. The positive predictive value of the GAPS in identifying those discharged within 12 hours was 50.5% (95% CI 48.4% to 52.7%). The AUROC for the GAPS was 0.606 (95% CI 0.590 to 0.622). 41.4% of the population had both an Amb and GAPS score suggestive of suitability for SDEC and 5.7% of the population had both and Amb and GAPS score suggestive of a lack of suitability for SDEC. CONCLUSIONS: The Amb score and GAPS had poor discriminatory ability to identify acute medical admissions suitable for discharge within 12 hours, limiting their utility in selecting patients for assessment within SDEC services within this diverse patient population

Evaluating discharges and readmissions using a COVID Virtual Ward model:a retrospective data study assessing patient outcomes and the likely staffing commitment

Background: COVID-19 has placed a catastrophic burden on acute hospitals. In an attempt to reduce admissions and enable safe early discharge, a COVID virtual ward (CVW) care pathway has been supported by NHS England. This includes discharging people who meet objective criteria based on acuity scores and oxygen saturations, with pulse oximeters and daily phone calls for up to 14 days. Observational studies have reported the safety of this system, but without describing the outcomes from usual care.Methods: A retrospective study using routinely collected health data from all adults with a confirmed positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) swab result between 1st June 2020 and 31st Jan 2021 who attended the Emergency Department or Acute Medical Unit at QEHB, which does not have a CVW service. Criteria for CVW were applied using data from the first 24 hours of presentation to hospital and subsequent health outcomes were included for 28 days, including re-presentation, re-admission, ITU escalation and death. Results were compared to reported studies based in secondary care.Results: During the study period, 26,127 patients presented to QEHB hospital. 2301 had a positive SARS-CoV-2 swab. Of these, 1730 (75.2%) did not meet the criteria for the CVW and 571 (24.8%) did. Of the 571, 325 (56.9%) were discharged home within 24 hours and 246 (43.1%) were admitted for 24 hours or longer. Those admitted were older, with increased co-morbidities, 80.9% required hospital-supported acute therapies after the first 24 hours and 10.6% died. Of the 325 discharged, 44 were readmitted (13.5%), 30 (9.2%) with COVID-related symptoms, 5 (1.5%) required ITU and 1 patient (0.3%) died. These results were comparable to published studies with a CVW service.Discussion: In the current study, discharging patients without a CVW did not confer a greater risk of re-presentation, re-admission, ITU escalation or death. The majority of patients who remained in hospital despite meeting the CVW criteria did so for the provision of treatments or acute assessments. It remains uncertain whether a CVW delivers improvements in hard outcomes, and further research is needed

Applying a COVID Virtual Ward model, assessing patient outcomes and staff workload.

A COVID virtual ward (CVW) is recommended by NHS England, but 'usual care' outcomes have not been reported. A retrospective study of all adults with COVID-19 attending Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham between 01/06/2020-31/01/2021, assessed against CVW criteria and followed for 28 days. Of 2301 COVID-19 patients, 571(25%) would have met CVW criteria. Of these, 325(57%) were discharged after review and 246(43%) admitted. Of admitted patients who met CVW criteria, 81% required hospital-supported therapies; 11% died. Of the 325 discharged, 13% re-presented, 9% with COVID-related symptoms, 2% required intensive care admission, and one died (0.3%). In this comparison, discharging patients without a CVW did not lead to more re-presentations, re-admissions, ITU escalations or deaths compared to published outcomes for hospitals with a CVW

The changing characteristics of COVID-19 presentations. A regional comparison of SARS-CoV-2 hospitalised patients during the first and second wave.

BACKGROUND This study assesses COVID-19 hospitalised patient demography and outcomes during wave 1 and wave 2, prior to new variants of the virus. METHODS All patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 swab between 10th March 2020 and 5th July 2020 (wave 1) and 1st September 2020 and 16th November 2020 (wave 2) admitted to University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust were included (n=4856), followed for 28 days. RESULTS Wave 2 patients were younger, more ethnically diverse, had less co-morbidities and disease presentation was milder on presentation. After matching for these factors, mortality was reduced, but without differences in intensive care admissions. CONCLUSION Prior to new SARS-CoV-2 variants, outcomes for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 were improving but with similar intensive care needs

Utility of Simulation via Instant Messaging - Birmingham Advance (SIMBA) in medical education during COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND Simulation via Instant Messaging - Birmingham Advance (SIMBA) aimed to improve clinicians' confidence in managing various clinical scenarios during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS Five SIMBA sessions were conducted between May and August 2020. Each session included simulation of scenarios and interactive discussion. Participants' self-reported confidence, acceptance, and relevance of the simulated cases were measured. RESULTS Significant improvement was observed in participants' self-reported confidence (overall n = 204, p<0.001; adrenal n = 33, p<0.001; thyroid n = 37, p<0.001; pituitary n = 79, p<0.001; inflammatory bowel disease n = 17, p<0.001; acute medicine n = 38, p<0.001). Participants reported improvements in clinical competencies: patient care 52.0% (n = 106/204), professionalism 30.9% (n = 63/204), knowledge on patient management 84.8% (n = 173/204), systems-based practice 48.0% (n = 98/204), practice-based learning 69.6% (n = 142/204) and communication skills 25.5% (n = 52/204). CONCLUSION SIMBA is a novel pedagogical virtual simulation-based learning model that improves clinicians' confidence in managing conditions across various specialties