ObjectivesTo determine the validity of the Manchester Triage System (MTS) in emergency care for the general population of patients attending the emergency department, for children and elderly, and for commonly used MTS flowcharts and discriminators across three different emergency care settings.MethodsThis was a prospective observational study in three European emergency departments. All consecutive patients attending the emergency department during a 1-year study period (2010–2012) were included. Validity of the MTS was assessed by comparing MTS urgency as determined by triage nurses with patient urgency according to a predefined 3-category reference standard as proxy for true patient urgency.Results288,663 patients were included in the analysis. Sensitivity of the MTS in the three hospitals ranged from 0.47 (95%CI 0.44–0.49) to 0.87 (95%CI 0.85–0.90), and specificity from 0.84 (95%CI 0.84–0.84) to 0.94 (95%CI 0.94–0.94) for the triage of adult patients. In children, sensitivity ranged from 0.65 (95%CI 0.61–0.70) to 0.83 (95%CI 0.79–0.87), and specificity from 0.83 (95%CI 0.82–0.83) to 0.89 (95%CI 0.88–0.90). The diagnostic odds ratio ranged from 13.5 (95%CI 12.1–15.0) to 35.3 (95%CI 28.4–43.9) in adults and from 9.8 (95%CI 6.7–14.5) to 23.8 (95%CI 17.7–32.0) in children, and was lowest in the youngest patients in 2 out of 3 settings and in the oldest patients in all settings. Performance varied considerably between the different emergency departments.ConclusionsValidity of the MTS in emergency care is moderate to good, with lowest performance in the young and elderly patients. Future studies on the validity of triage systems should be restricted to large, multicenter studies to define modifications and improve generalizability of the findings.

ObjectiveIn hospitalized patients, the risk of sepsis-related mortality can be assessed using the quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA). Currently, different tools that predict deterioration such as the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) have been introduced in clinical practice in Emergency Departments (ED) worldwide. It remains ambiguous which screening tool for mortality at the ED is best. The objective of this study was to evaluate the predictive performance for mortality of two sepsis-based scores (i.e. qSOFA and Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS)-criteria) compared to the more general NEWS score, in patients with suspected infection directly at presentation to the ED.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study. Patients who presented to the ED between June 2012 and May 2016 with suspected sepsis in a large tertiary care center were included. Suspected sepsis was defined as initiation of intravenous antibiotics and/or collection of any culture in the ED. Outcome was defined as 10-day and 30-day mortality after ED presentation. Predictive performance was expressed as discrimination (AUC) and calibration using Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. Subsequently, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated.ResultsIn total 8,204 patients were included of whom 286 (3.5%) died within ten days and 490 (6.0%) within 30 days after presentation. NEWS had the best performance, followed by qSOFA and SIRS (10-day AUC: 0.837, 0.744, 0.646, 30-day AUC: 0.779, 0.697, 0.631). qSOFA (≥2) lacked a high sensitivity versus SIRS (≥2) and NEWS (≥7) (28.5%, 77.2%, 68.0%), whilst entailing highest specificity versus NEWS and SIRS (93.7%, 66.5%, 37.6%).ConclusionsNEWS is more accurate in predicting 10- and 30-day mortality than qSOFA and SIRS in patients presenting to the ED with suspected sepsis.

These data support the conclusion that, in view of the large number of islets needed to maintain normoglycemia after xenotransplantation, organ-source pigs need to reach adult age (>2 yr) before being considered optimal islet donors, in spite of the higher costs involved.

We conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis to provide an overview of the different manners of providing discharge instructions in the emergency department (ED) and to assess their effects on comprehension and recall of the 4 domains of discharge instructions: diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and return instructions.Methods: We performed a systematic search in the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases for studies published before March 15, 2018. A quality assessment of included articles was performed. Pooled proportions of correct recall by manner of providing discharge instructions were calculated.Results: A total of 1,842 articles were screened, and after selection, 51 articles were included. Of the 51 included studies, 12 used verbal discharge instructions only, 30 used written discharge instructions, and 7 used video. Correct recall of verbal, written, and video discharge instructions ranged from 8% to 94%, 23% to 92%, and 54% to 89%, respectively. Meta-analysis was performed on data of 1,460 patients who received verbal information only, 3,395 patients who received written information, and 459 patients who received video information. Pooled data showed differences in correct recall, with, on average, 47% for patients who received verbal information (95% confidence interval 32.2% to 61.7%), 58% for patients who received written information (95% confidence interval 44.2% to 71.2%), and 67% for patients who received video information (95% confidence interval 57.9% to 75.7%). Conclusion:Communicating discharge instructions verbally to patients in the ED may not be sufficient. Although overall correct recall was not significantly higher, adding video or written information to discharge instructions showed promising results for ED patients.