Search

Objective: Artificial intelligence (AI) has gradually found its way into healthcare, and its future integration into clinical practice is inevitable. In the present study, we evaluate the accuracy of a novel AI algorithm designed to predict admission based on a triage note after clinical implementation. This is the first of such studies to investigate real‐time AI performance in the emergency setting. Methods: The novel AI algorithm that predicts admission using a triage note was translated into clinical practice and integrated within St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne's electronic emergency patient management system. The data were collected from 1 January 2021 to 17 August 2022 to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the AI system after implementation. Results: A total of 77 125 ED presentations were included. The live AI algorithm has a sensitivity of 73.1% (95% confidence interval 72.5–73.8), specificity of 74.3% (73.9–74.7), positive predictive value of 50% (49.6–50.4) and negative predictive value of 88.7% (88.5–89) with a total accuracy of 74% (73.7–74.3). The accuracy of the system was at the lowest for admission to psychiatric units (34%) and at the highest for gastroenterology and medical admission (84% and 80%, respectively). Conclusion: Our study showed the diagnostic evaluation of a real‐time AI clinical decision‐support tool became less accurate than the original. Although real‐time sensitivity and specificity of the AI tool was still acceptable as a decision‐support tool in the ED, we propose that continuous training and evaluation of AI‐enabled clinical support tools in healthcare are conducted to ensure consistent accuracy and performance to prevent inadvertent consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ketamine is a fast-acting, dissociative anesthetic with a favorable adverse effect profile that is effective for managing acute agitation as a chemical restraint in the prehospital and emergency department (ED) settings. However, some previously published individual studies have reported high intubation rates when ketamine was administered prehospitally. This systematic review aims to determine the rate and settings in which intubation following prehospital administration of ketamine for agitation is occurring, as well as associated indications and adverse events. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, OpenGrey, Open Access Theses and Dissertation, and Google Scholar from the earliest possible date until 13/February/2022. Inclusion criteria required studies to describe agitated patients who received ketamine in the prehospital setting as a first-line drug to control acute agitation. Reference lists of appraised studies were screened for additional relevant articles. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. Synthesis of results was completed via meta-analysis, and the GRADE tool was used for certainty assessment. The search yielded 1466 unique records and abstracts, of which 50 full texts were reviewed, resulting in 18 being included in the analysis. All studies were observational in nature and 15 were from USA. There were 3476 patients in total, and the overall rate of intubation was 16% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 8%–26%). Most intubations occurred in the ED. Within the studies, the prehospital intubation rate ranged from 0% to 7.9% and the ED intubation rate ranged from 0 to 60%. The overall pooled prehospital intubation rate was 1% (95% CI = 0%–2%). The overall pooled ED intubation rate was 19% (95% CI = 11%–30%). The most common indications for intubation were for airway protection and respiratory depression/failure. There is wide variation in intubation rates between and within studies. The majority of intubations performed following prehospital administration of ketamine for agitation took place in the ED. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of the present study was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients presenting to Australian EDs with suspected and confirmed COVID‐19 during 2020, and to determine the predictors of in‐hospital death for SARS‐CoV‐2 positive patients. Methods: This analysis from the COVED Project presents data from 12 sites across four Australian states for the period from 1 April to 30 November 2020. All adult patients who met local criteria for suspected COVID‐19 and underwent testing for SARS‐CoV‐2 in the ED were eligible for inclusion. Study outcomes were mechanical ventilation and in‐hospital mortality. Results: Among 24 405 eligible ED presentations over the whole study period, 423 tested positive for SARS‐CoV‐2. During the 'second wave' from 1 July to 30 September 2020, 26 (6%) of 406 SARS‐CoV‐2 patients received invasive mechanical ventilation, compared to 175 (2%) of the 9024 SARS‐CoV‐2 negative patients (odds ratio [OR] 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.3–5.2, P < 0.001), and 41 (10%) SARS‐CoV‐2 positive patients died in hospital compared to 312 (3%) SARS‐CoV‐2 negative patients (OR 3.2; 95% CI 2.2–4.4, P = 0.001). For SARS‐CoV‐2 positive patients, the strongest independent predictors of hospital death were age (OR 1.1; 95% CI 1.1–1.1, P < 0.001), higher triage category (OR 3.5; 95% CI 1.3–9.4, P = 0.012), obesity (OR 4.2; 95% CI 1.2–14.3, P = 0.024) and receiving immunosuppressive treatment (OR 8.2; 95% CI 1.8–36.7, P = 0.006). Conclusions: ED patients who tested positive for SARS‐CoV‐2 had higher odds of mechanical ventilation and death in hospital. The strongest predictors of death were age, a higher triage category, obesity and receiving immunosuppressive treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of the present study was to describe the epidemiology and clinical features of patients presenting to the ED with suspected and confirmed COVID‐19 during Australia's 'second wave'. Methods: The COVID‐19 ED (COVED) Project is an ongoing prospective cohort study in Australian EDs. This analysis presents data from 12 sites across four Australian states for the period from 1 July to 31 August 2020. All adult patients who met the criteria for 'suspected COVID‐19' and underwent testing for SARS‐CoV‐2 in the ED were eligible for inclusion. Study outcomes included a positive SARS‐CoV‐2 test result, mechanical ventilation and in‐hospital mortality. Results: There were 106 136 presentations to the participating EDs and 12 055 (11.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 11.2–11.6) underwent testing for SARS‐CoV‐2. Of these, 255 (2%) patients returned a positive result. Among positive cases, 13 (5%) received mechanical ventilation during their hospital admission compared to 122 (2%) of the SARS‐CoV‐2 negative patients (odds ratio 2.7; 95% CI 1.5–4.9, P = 0.001). Nineteen (7%) SARS‐CoV‐2 positive patients died in hospital compared to 212 (3%) of the SARS‐CoV‐2 negative patients (odds ratio 2.3; 95% CI 1.4–3.7, P = 0.001). Strong clinical predictors of the SARS‐CoV‐2 test result included self‐reported fever, sore throat, bilateral infiltrates on chest X‐ray, and absence of a leucocytosis on first ED blood tests (P < 0.05). Conclusions: In this prospective multi‐site study during Australia's 'second wave', a substantial proportion of ED presentations required SARS‐CoV‐2 testing and isolation. Presence of SARS‐CoV‐2 on nasopharyngeal swab was associated with an increase in the odds of death and mechanical ventilation in hospital. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of the present study was to describe the epidemiology and clinical features of patients presenting to the ED with suspected and confirmed COVID‐19. Methods: The COVID‐19 ED (COVED) Project is an ongoing prospective cohort study in Australian EDs. This analysis presents data from eight sites across Victoria and Tasmania for July 2020 (during Australia's 'second wave'). All adult patients who met criteria for 'suspected COVID‐19' and underwent testing for SARS‐CoV‐2 in the ED were eligible for inclusion. Study outcomes included a positive SARS‐CoV‐2 test result and mechanical ventilation. Results: In the period 1 July to 31 July 2020, there were 30 378 presentations to the participating EDs and 2917 (9.6%; 95% confidence interval 9.3–9.9) underwent testing for SARS‐CoV‐2. Of these, 50 (2%) patients returned a positive result. Among positive cases, two (4%) received mechanical ventilation during their hospital admission compared to 45 (2%) of the SARS‐CoV‐2 negative patients (odds ratio 1.7, 95% confidence interval 0.4–7.3; P = 0.47). Two (4%) SARS‐CoV‐2 positive patients died in hospital compared to 46 (2%) of the SARS‐CoV‐2 negative patients (odds ratio 1.7, 95% confidence interval 0.4–7.1; P = 0.49). Strong clinical predictors of a positive SARS‐CoV‐2 result included self‐reported fever, non‐smoking status, bilateral infiltrates on chest X‐ray and absence of a leucocytosis on first ED blood tests (P < 0.05). Conclusion: In this prospective multi‐site study from July 2020, a substantial proportion of ED patients required SARS‐CoV‐2 testing, isolation and enhanced infection prevention and control precautions. Presence of SARS‐CoV‐2 on nasopharyngeal swab was not associated with death or mechanical ventilation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]