No abstract

Objectives We aimed to derive and validate a triage tool, based on clinical assessment alone, for predicting adverse outcome in acutely ill adults with suspected COVID-19 infection. Methods We undertook a mixed prospective and retrospective observational cohort study in 70 emergency departments across the United Kingdom (UK). We collected presenting data from 22445 people attending with suspected COVID-19 between 26 March 2020 and 28 May 2020. The primary outcome was death or organ support (respiratory, cardiovascular, or renal) by record review at 30 days. We split the cohort into derivation and validation sets, developed a clinical score based on the coefficients from multivariable analysis using the derivation set, and the estimated discriminant performance using the validation set. Results We analysed 11773 derivation and 9118 validation cases. Multivariable analysis identified that age, sex, respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure, oxygen saturation/inspired oxygen ratio, performance status, consciousness, history of renal impairment, and respiratory distress were retained in analyses restricted to the ten or fewer predictors. We used findings from multivariable analysis and clinical judgement to develop a score based on the NEWS2 score, age, sex, and performance status. This had a c-statistic of 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.79–0.81) in the validation cohort and predicted adverse outcome with sensitivity 0.98 (0.97–0.98) and specificity 0.34 (0.34–0.35) for scores above four points. Conclusion A clinical score based on NEWS2, age, sex, and performance status predicts adverse outcome with good discrimination in adults with suspected COVID-19 and can be used to support decision-making in emergency care. Registration ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN28342533, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN28342533

–  Objective:  Dentofacial emergencies are a common presentation to the emergency department (ED) but there is little recent data on physicians’ knowledge, confidence and attitudes in handling these cases. Method:  A questionnaire was administered to 103 ED physicians. The sample was primarily drawn from London hospitals as well a smaller contribution from around the UK and included physicians with a range of experience and at different grades. Results:  The majority of the 102 participants (76.5%) did not receive any formal training in managing dentofacial emergencies. The percentage of participants who were happy to manage common dentofacial emergencies is as follows: dental trauma (20.4%); major facial trauma (39.8%); interpreting facial X‐rays (68.0%); and facial suturing (85.4%). When questioned 12.1% of the participants felt that ED physicians should be responsible for managing dental emergencies compared to 22.4% who felt that ED physicians should manage maxillofacial emergencies. Only 3.9% of the participants would opt to be treated by an ED doctor in the event of them presenting to the ED with a dental injury. The remaining 72.5% would prefer to be seen by a maxillofacial surgeon, 23.5% by a dentist and none of the participants opted to be seen by the emergency nurse practitioner. Conclusion:  ED physicians do not feel confident in managing some dentofacial emergencies. This may be attributed to a lack of training in this area as well as exposure to these types of emergencies. There is a need for greater awareness, validated guidelines and training resources for ED physicians to treat dentofacial emergencies as well more research in this field of emergency medicine.