Background. Approximately 0.7% of the Canadian population is infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV), and many individuals are unaware of their infection. Our objectives were to utilize an emergency department (ED) based point-of-care (POC) HCV screening test to describe our local population and estimate the proportion of high-risk patients in our population with undiagnosed HCV. Methods. A convenience sample of medically stable patients (≥18 years) presenting to a community ED in Calgary, AB, between April and July 2018 underwent rapid clinical screening for HCV risk factors, including history of injection drug use, healthcare in endemic countries, and other recognized criteria. High-risk patients were offered POC HCV testing. Antibody-positive patients underwent HCV-RNA testing and were linked to hepatology care. The primary outcome was the proportion of new HCV diagnoses in the high-risk population. Results. Of the 999 patients screened by survey, 247 patients (24.7%) were high-risk and eligible for testing. Of these, 123 (49.8%) were from HCV-endemic countries, while 63 (25.5%) and 31 (12.6%) patients endorsed a history of incarceration and intravenous drug use (IVDU), respectively. A total of 144 (58.3%) eligible patients agreed to testing. Of these, 6 patients were POC-positive (4.2%, CI 0.9–7.4%); all 6 had antibodies detected on confirmatory lab testing and 4 had detectable HCV-RNA viral loads in follow-up. Notably, 103 (41.7%) patients declined POC testing. Interpretation. Among 144 high-risk patients who agreed to testing, the rate of undiagnosed HCV infection was 4.2%, and the rate of undiagnosed HCV infection with detectable viral load was 2.8%. Many patients with high-risk clinical criteria refused POC testing. It is unknown if tested and untested groups have the same disease prevalence. This study shows that ED HCV screening is feasible and that a small number of previously undiagnosed patients can be identified and linked to potentially life-changing care.

and disposition decision and identify factors driving the discordance. Secondary outcome measures included comparing 30-day readmission rate, 30-day and 90-day mortality between the discordant PESI groups. Results: 365 patients were diagnosed with PE in the study period with 60% being admitted and 40% discharged. The median PESI score in admitted patients was 85 (26-172) vs. 68 (20-163) in discharged patients. 51% of admitted patients had a low-risk PESI score and 24% of the discharged patients were high-risk PESI. 30-day readmission rate was 22.9% vs. 5.3% (p = 0.002) in discharged patients with high-risk PESI vs. discharged patients with low-risk PESI. Hypoxemia was the most common (62%) justification for admission in low-risk PESI groups. Among discharged patients we noted an 8.6% 90-day mortality in the high-risk vs. 0% in the low-risk PESI groups. Conclusion: Discharging a PE patient from the ED with a high PESI score carries a significant risk of ED revisit and readmission. Hypoxia was the reason for admission in majority of low risk PE patients.