电话分诊预测疑似新冠肺炎患者不良结局的准确性:一项观察性队列研究

Carl Marincowitz, Tony Stone, Peter Bath, Richard Campbell, Janette Kay Turner, Madina Hasan, Richard Pilbery, Benjamin David Thomas, Laura Sutton, Fiona Bell, Katie Biggs, Frank Hopfgartner, Suvodeep Mazumdar, Jennifer Petrie, Steve Goodacre
{"title":"电话分诊预测疑似新冠肺炎患者不良结局的准确性:一项观察性队列研究","authors":"Carl Marincowitz, Tony Stone, Peter Bath, Richard Campbell, Janette Kay Turner, Madina Hasan, Richard Pilbery, Benjamin David Thomas, Laura Sutton, Fiona Bell, Katie Biggs, Frank Hopfgartner, Suvodeep Mazumdar, Jennifer Petrie, Steve Goodacre","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess accuracy of telephone triage in identifying need for emergency care among those with suspected COVID-19 infection and identify factors which affect triage accuracy.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Observational cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Community telephone triage provided in the UK by Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust (YAS).</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>40 261 adults who contacted National Health Service (NHS) 111 telephone triage services provided by YAS between 18 March 2020 and 29 June 2020 with symptoms indicating COVID-19 infection were linked to Office for National Statistics death registrations and healthcare data collected by NHS Digital.</p><p><strong>Outcome: </strong>Accuracy of triage disposition was assessed in terms of death or need for organ support up to 30 days from first contact.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Callers had a 3% (1200/40 261) risk of serious adverse outcomes (death or organ support). Telephone triage recommended self-care or non-urgent assessment for 60% (24 335/40 261), with a 1.3% (310/24 335) risk of adverse outcomes. Telephone triage had 74.2% sensitivity (95% CI: 71.6 to 76.6%) and 61.5% specificity (95% CI: 61% to 62%) for the primary outcome. Multivariable analysis suggested respiratory comorbidities may be overappreciated, and diabetes underappreciated as predictors of deterioration. Repeat contact with triage service appears to be an important under-recognised predictor of deterioration with 2 contacts (OR 1.77, 95% CI: 1.14 to 2.75) and 3 or more contacts (OR 4.02, 95% CI: 1.68 to 9.65) associated with false negative triage.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients advised to self-care or receive non-urgent clinical assessment had a small but non-negligible risk of serious clinical deterioration. Repeat contact with telephone services needs recognition as an important predictor of subsequent adverse outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":49653,"journal":{"name":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8983415/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of telephone triage for predicting adverse outcomes in suspected COVID-19: an observational cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Carl Marincowitz, Tony Stone, Peter Bath, Richard Campbell, Janette Kay Turner, Madina Hasan, Richard Pilbery, Benjamin David Thomas, Laura Sutton, Fiona Bell, Katie Biggs, Frank Hopfgartner, Suvodeep Mazumdar, Jennifer Petrie, Steve Goodacre\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014382\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess accuracy of telephone triage in identifying need for emergency care among those with suspected COVID-19 infection and identify factors which affect triage accuracy.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Observational cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Community telephone triage provided in the UK by Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust (YAS).</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>40 261 adults who contacted National Health Service (NHS) 111 telephone triage services provided by YAS between 18 March 2020 and 29 June 2020 with symptoms indicating COVID-19 infection were linked to Office for National Statistics death registrations and healthcare data collected by NHS Digital.</p><p><strong>Outcome: </strong>Accuracy of triage disposition was assessed in terms of death or need for organ support up to 30 days from first contact.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Callers had a 3% (1200/40 261) risk of serious adverse outcomes (death or organ support). Telephone triage recommended self-care or non-urgent assessment for 60% (24 335/40 261), with a 1.3% (310/24 335) risk of adverse outcomes. Telephone triage had 74.2% sensitivity (95% CI: 71.6 to 76.6%) and 61.5% specificity (95% CI: 61% to 62%) for the primary outcome. Multivariable analysis suggested respiratory comorbidities may be overappreciated, and diabetes underappreciated as predictors of deterioration. Repeat contact with triage service appears to be an important under-recognised predictor of deterioration with 2 contacts (OR 1.77, 95% CI: 1.14 to 2.75) and 3 or more contacts (OR 4.02, 95% CI: 1.68 to 9.65) associated with false negative triage.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients advised to self-care or receive non-urgent clinical assessment had a small but non-negligible risk of serious clinical deterioration. Repeat contact with telephone services needs recognition as an important predictor of subsequent adverse outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49653,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality & Safety in Health Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8983415/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality & Safety in Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014382\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014382","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估电话分诊在识别新冠肺炎疑似感染者中需要紧急护理的患者方面的准确性,并确定影响分诊准确性的因素。设计:观察性队列研究设置:约克郡和亨伯、巴塞特劳、北林肯郡和东北林肯郡地区的社区电话分诊。参与者:40261名成年人在2020年3月18日至2020年6月29日期间联系了约克郡救护车服务NHS信托基金会提供的NHS111电话分诊服务,症状表明可能感染了新冠肺炎,他们与国家统计局死亡登记数据、NHS Digital收集的医院和全科医学电子医疗保健数据相关联。结果:在第一次接触电话分诊服务后的30、7和3天,根据死亡或器官支持需求评估分诊处理的准确性(自我护理/非紧急临床评估与救护车派遣/紧急临床评估)。结果:来电者有3%(1200/40261)的不良结果风险。电话分诊建议60%(24335/40261)的患者进行自我护理或非紧急评估,随后不良结果的风险为1.3%(310/24335)。电话分诊对首次接触后30天的不良结果有74.2%的敏感性(95%可信区间:71.6至76.6%)和61.5%的特异性(61%至62%)。多变量分析表明,一些合并症(如慢性呼吸系统疾病)可能被高估为不良结果的预测因素,而糖尿病与不良结果的相关性可能被低估。在没有救护车或紧急临床评估的情况下,2名接触者(OR 1.77 95%CI:1.14至2.75)和3名或3名以上接触者(OR4.02 95%CI:1.68至9.65)与临床恶化相关,与服务的重复接触似乎是一个未被充分认识的不良结果的重要预测因素。结论:建议自我护理或接受非紧急临床评估的患者发生严重临床恶化的风险很小,但不可忽略。电话分诊的敏感性和特异性与急诊和紧急护理中用于分诊患者敏锐度的其他工具相当。重复接触电话服务需要被视为后续不良结果的重要预测因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Accuracy of telephone triage for predicting adverse outcomes in suspected COVID-19: an observational cohort study.

Objective: To assess accuracy of telephone triage in identifying need for emergency care among those with suspected COVID-19 infection and identify factors which affect triage accuracy.

Design: Observational cohort study.

Setting: Community telephone triage provided in the UK by Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust (YAS).

Participants: 40 261 adults who contacted National Health Service (NHS) 111 telephone triage services provided by YAS between 18 March 2020 and 29 June 2020 with symptoms indicating COVID-19 infection were linked to Office for National Statistics death registrations and healthcare data collected by NHS Digital.

Outcome: Accuracy of triage disposition was assessed in terms of death or need for organ support up to 30 days from first contact.

Results: Callers had a 3% (1200/40 261) risk of serious adverse outcomes (death or organ support). Telephone triage recommended self-care or non-urgent assessment for 60% (24 335/40 261), with a 1.3% (310/24 335) risk of adverse outcomes. Telephone triage had 74.2% sensitivity (95% CI: 71.6 to 76.6%) and 61.5% specificity (95% CI: 61% to 62%) for the primary outcome. Multivariable analysis suggested respiratory comorbidities may be overappreciated, and diabetes underappreciated as predictors of deterioration. Repeat contact with triage service appears to be an important under-recognised predictor of deterioration with 2 contacts (OR 1.77, 95% CI: 1.14 to 2.75) and 3 or more contacts (OR 4.02, 95% CI: 1.68 to 9.65) associated with false negative triage.

Conclusion: Patients advised to self-care or receive non-urgent clinical assessment had a small but non-negligible risk of serious clinical deterioration. Repeat contact with telephone services needs recognition as an important predictor of subsequent adverse outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Quality & Safety in Health Care
Quality & Safety in Health Care 医学-卫生保健
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Accuracy of telephone triage for predicting adverse outcomes in suspected COVID-19: an observational cohort study. Quality framework for remote antenatal care: qualitative study with women, healthcare professionals and system-level stakeholders. Addressing social determinants of health in primary care: a quasi-experimental study using unannounced standardised patients to evaluate the impact of audit/feedback on physicians' rates of identifying and responding to social needs. Reporting on implementation trials with null findings: the need for concurrent process evaluation reporting. Antibiotic documentation: death by a thousand clicks.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1