Objectives The aims of our study are firstly to investigate the diagnostic and triage performance of symptom checkers, secondly to assess their potential impact on healthcare utilisation and thirdly to investigate for variation in performance between systems. Setting Publicly available symptom checkers for patient use. Participants Publicly available symptom-checkers were identified. A standardised set of 50 clinical vignettes were developed and systematically run through each system by a non-clinical researcher. Primary and secondary outcome measures System accuracy was assessed by measuring the percentage of times the correct diagnosis was a) listed first, b) within the top five diagnoses listed and c) listed at all. The safety of the disposition advice was assessed by comparing it with national guidelines for each vignette. Results Twelve tools were identified and included. Mean diagnostic accuracy of the systems was poor, with the correct diagnosis being present in the top five diagnoses on 51.0% (Range 22.2 to 84.0%). Safety of disposition advice decreased with condition urgency (being 71.8% for emergency cases vs 87.3% for non-urgent cases). 51.0% of systems suggested additional resource utilisation above that recommended by national guidelines (range 18.0% to 61.2%). Both diagnostic accuracy and appropriate resource recommendation varied substantially between systems. Conclusions There is wide variation in performance between available symptom checkers and overall performance is significantly below what would be accepted in any other medical field, though some do achieve a good level of accuracy and safety of disposition. External validation and regulation are urgently required to ensure these public facing tools are safe.

BackgroundDelays to timely admission from emergency departments (EDs) are known to harm patients.ObjectiveTo assess and quantify the increased risk of death resulting from delays to inpatient admission from EDs, using Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics data in England.MethodsA cross-sectional, retrospective observational study was carried out of patients admitted from every type 1 (major) ED in England between April 2016 and March 2018. The primary outcome was death from all causes within 30 days of admission. Observed mortality was compared with expected mortality, as calculated using a logistic regression model to adjust for sex, age, deprivation, comorbidities, hour of day, month, previous ED attendances/emergency admissions and crowding in the department at the time of the attendance.ResultsBetween April 2016 and March 2018, 26 738 514 people attended an ED, with 7 472 480 patients admitted relating to 5 249 891 individual patients, who constituted the study’s dataset. A total of 433 962 deaths occurred within 30 days. The overall crude 30-day mortality rate was 8.71% (95% CI 8.69% to 8.74%). A statistically significant linear increase in mortality was found from 5 hours after time of arrival at the ED up to 12 hours (when accurate data collection ceased) (p<0.001). The greatest change in the 30-day standardised mortality ratio was an 8% increase, occurring in the patient cohort that waited in the ED for more than 6 to 8 hours from the time of arrival.ConclusionsDelays to hospital inpatient admission for patients in excess of 5 hours from time of arrival at the ED are associated with an increase in all-cause 30-day mortality. Between 5 and 12 hours, delays cause a predictable dose–response effect. For every 82 admitted patients whose time to inpatient bed transfer is delayed beyond 6 to 8 hours from time of arrival at the ED, there is one extra death.

Objectives: The aims of this study are firstly to investigate the diagnostic and triage performance of symptom checkers, secondly to assess their potential impact on healthcare utilisation and thirdly to investigate for variation in performance between systems. Setting: Publicly available symptom checkers Participants: Publicly available symptom-checkers were identified. A standardised set of 50 clinical vignettes was developed and systematically run through each system by a non-clinical researcher. Primary and secondary outcome measures: System accuracy was assessed by measuring the percentage of times the correct diagnosis was a) listed first, b) within the top five diagnoses listed and c) listed at all. The safety of the disposition advice was assessed by comparing it with national guidelines for each vignette. Results: Twelve tools were identified and included. Mean diagnostic accuracy of the systems was poor, with the correct diagnosis being listed first on 37.7% (Range 22.2 to 72.0%) of occasions and present in the top five diagnoses on 51.0% (Range 22.2 to 84.0%). 51.0% of systems suggested additional resource utilisation above that recommended by national guidelines (range 18.0% to 61.2%). Both diagnostic accuracy and appropriate resource recommendation varied substantially between systems. Conclusions: There is wide variation in performance between available symptom checkers and overall performance is significantly below what would be accepted in any other medical field, though some do achieve a good level of accuracy and safety of disposition. External validation and regulation are urgently required to ensure these public facing tools are safe.

Early reports showed high mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Mortality rates have recently been lower; however, patients are also now younger, with fewer comorbidities. We explored 28-day mortality for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in England over a 5-month period, adjusting for a range of potentially mitigating variables, including sociodemographics and comorbidities. Among 102,610 hospitalizations, crude mortality decreased from 33.4% (95% CI, 32.9-34.0) in March 2020 to 15.5% (95% CI, 14.1-17.0) in July. Adjusted mortality decreased from 33.4% (95% CI, 32.8-34.1) in March to 17.4% (95% CI, 11.3-26.9) in July. The relative risk of mortality decreased from a reference of 1 in March to 0.52 (95% CI, 0.34-0.80) in July. This demonstrates that the reduction in mortality is not solely due to changes in the demographics of those with COVID-19.

BackgroundLaparoscopic anti-reflux surgery (LARS) remains central to the management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease but the scale and variation in provision in England is unknown. The aims of this study were firstly to examine the processes and outcomes of anti-reflux surgery in England and compare them to national guidelines and secondly to explore potential variations in practice nationally and establish peer benchmarks.MethodsAll adult patients who underwent LARSin England during the Financial years FY 2011/2012–FY 2016/2017 were identified in the Surgeon’s Workload Outcomes and Research Database (SWORD), which is based on the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data warehouse. Outcomes included activity volume, day-case rate, short-stay rate, 2- and 30-day readmission rates and 30-day re-operation rates. Funnel plots were used to identify national variation in practice.ResultsIn total, 12,086 patients underwent LARS in England during the study period. The operation rate decreased slightly over the study period from 5.2 to 4.6 per 100,000 people. Most outcomes were in line with national guidelines including the conversion rate (0.76%), 30-day re-operation rate (1.43%) and 2- and 30-day readmission rates (1.65 and 8.54%, respectively). The day-case rate was low but increased from 7.4 to 15.1% during the 5-year period. Significant variation was found, particularly in terms of hospital volume, and day-case, short-stay and conversion rates.ConclusionAlthough overall outcomes are comparable to studies from other countries, there is significant variation in anti-reflux surgery activity and outcomes in England. We recommend that units use these data to drive local quality improvement efforts.