BackgroundGiven the scarcity of resources, the increasing use of emergency departments (ED) represents a major challenge for the care of emergency patients. Current health policy interventions focus on restructuring emergency care with the help of patient re-direction into outpatient treatment structures. A precise analysis of ED utilization, taking into account treatment urgency, is essential for demand-oriented adjustments of emergency care structures.MethodsTemporal and seasonal trends in the use of EDs were investigated, considering treatment urgency and hospital mortality. Secondary data of 287,119 ED visits between 2015 and 2017 of the two EDs of Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow Klinikum were analyzed.ResultEDs were used significantly more frequently on weekends than on weekdays (Mdn = 290 vs. 245 visits/day; p < 0.001). The proportion of less urgent, outpatient emergency visits on weekends was above average. Holiday periods were characterized by at least 6, and at most 176 additional ED visits. In a comparison of different holidays, most ED visits were observed at New Year (+68% above average). In addition, a significant increase in in-hospital mortality on holidays was evident among inpatients admitted to hospital via the ED (3.0 vs. 3.2%; p < 0.001), with New Year's Day being particularly striking (5.4%).ConclusionThese results suggest that, in particular, the resource planning of outpatient emergency treatment capacities on weekends and holidays should be adapted to the increased volume of non-urgent visits in EDs. Nevertheless, treatment capacities for the care of urgent, inpatient emergencies should not be disregarded and further research projects are necessary to investigate the causes of increased mortality during holiday periods.

IntroductionQuality of emergency department (ED) care affects patient outcomes substantially. Quality indicators (QIs) for ED care are a major challenge due to the heterogeneity of patient populations, health care structures and processes in Germany. Although a number of quality measures are already in use, there is a paucity of data on the importance of these QIs on medium-term and long-term outcomes. The evaluation of outcome relevance of quality indicators in the emergency department study (ENQuIRE) aims to identify and investigate the relevance of QIs in the ED on patient outcomes in a 12-month follow-up.Methods and analysisThe study is a prospective non-interventional multicentre cohort study conducted in 15 EDs throughout Germany. Included are all patients in 2019, who were ≥18 years of age, insured at the Techniker Krankenkasse (statutory health insurance (SHI)) and gave their written informed consent to the study.The primary objective of the study is to assess the effect of selected quality measures on patient outcome. The data collected for this purpose comprise medical records from the ED treatment, discharge (claims) data from hospitalised patients, a patient questionnaire to be answered 6–8 weeks after emergency admission, and outcome measures in a 12-month follow-up obtained as claims data from the SHI.Descriptive and analytical statistics will be applied to provide summaries about the characteristics of QIs and associations between quality measures and patient outcomes.Ethics and disseminationApproval of the leading ethics committee at the Medical Faculty of the University of Magdeburg (reference number 163/18 from 19 November 2018) has been obtained and adapted by responsible local ethics committees.The findings of this work will be disseminated by publication of peer-reviewed manuscripts and presentations as conference contributions (abstracts, poster or oral presentations).Moreover, results will be discussed with clinical experts and medical associations before being proposed for implementation into the quality management of EDs.Trial registration numberGerman Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS00015203); Pre-results.

ObjectivesOne major goal of the emergency department (ED) is to decide, whether patients need to be hospitalised or can be sent home safely. We aim at providing criteria for these decisions without knowing the SARS-CoV-2 test result in suspected cases.SettingTertiary emergency medicine.ParticipantsAll patients were treated at the ED of the Charité during the pandemic peak and underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing. Patients with positive test results were characterised in detail and underwent a 14-day-follow-up.Primary and secondary outcome measuresLogistic regression and classification and regression tree (CART) analyses were performed to identify predictors (primary endpoint), which confirm safe discharge. The clinical endpoint was all-cause mortality or need for mechanical ventilation during index stay or after readmission.ResultsThe primary test population of suspected COVID-19 consisted of n=1255 cases, 45.2% were women (n=567). Of these, n=110 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (8.8%). The median age of SARS-CoV-2-positive cases was 45 years (IQR: 33–66 years), whereas the median age of the group tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 was 42 years (IQR: 30–60 years) (p=0.096). 43.6% were directly admitted to hospital care.CART analysis identified the variables oxygen saturation (<95%), dyspnoea and history of cardiovascular (CV) disease to distinguish between high and low-risk groups. If all three variables were negative, most patients were discharged from ED, and the incidence of the clinical endpoint was 0%. The validation cohort confirmed the safety of discharge using these variables and revealed an incidence of the clinical endpoint from 14.3% in patients with CV disease, 9.4% in patients with dyspnoea and 18.2% in patients with O2 satuaration below 95%.ConclusionsBased on easily available variables like dyspnoea, oxygen saturation, history of CV disease, approximately 25% of patients subsequently confirmed with COVID-19 can be identified for safe discharge.Trial registration numberDRKS00023117.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Patients in need of urgent inpatient treatment were recruited prospectively. A rapid point of care PCR test (POC-PCR; Liat®) for SARS-CoV2 was conducted in the ED and a second PCR-test from the same swab was ordered in the central laboratory (CL-PCR). POC-PCR analyzers were digitally integrated in the laboratory information system. Overall, 160 ED patients were included. A valid POC-PCR-test result was available in 96.3% (n=154) of patients. N=16 patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (10.0%). The POC PCR test results were available within 102 minutes (median, IQR: 56-211), which was significantly earlier compared to the CL PCR (811 minutes; IQR: 533-1289, p < 0.001). The diagnostic accuracy of the POC- PCR test was 100%. The implementation and digital LIS integration was successfully done. Staff satisfaction with the POC process was high. The POC-PCR testing in the emergency department is feasible and shows a very high diagnostic performance. Trial registration: DRKS00019207