• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Evaluation of triage methods used to select patients with suspected pandemic influenza for hospital admission

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Emerg Med J. 2011 May 17. [Epub ahead of print]
Evaluation of triage methods used to select patients with suspected pandemic influenza for hospital admission.
Challen K, Goodacre SW, Wilson R, Bentley A, Campbell M, Fitzsimmons C, Walter D.
Source

School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Abstract

Objectives Prepandemic projections anticipated huge excess attendances and mortality in an influenza pandemic. A number of tools had been suggested for triaging patients with influenza for inpatient and critical care admission, but none had been validated in these patients. The authors aimed to evaluate three potential triage tools-CURB-65, PMEWS and the Department of Health community assessment tool (CAT)-in patients in the first waves of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Setting Prospective cohort study in three urban emergency departments (one adult, one paediatric, one mixed) in two cities. Participants All patients presenting to the three emergency departments fulfilling the national definition of suspected pandemic influenza. Outcome measures 30-day follow-up identified patients who had died or had required advanced respiratory, cardiovascular or renal support. Results The pandemic was much less severe than expected. A total of 481 patients (347 children) were recruited, of which only five adults fulfilled the outcome criteria for severe illness. The c-statistics for CURB-65, PMEWS and CAT in adults in terms of discriminating between those admitted and discharged were 0.65 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.76), 0.76 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.86) and 0.62 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.72), respectively. In detecting adverse outcome, sensitivities were 20% (95% CI 4% to 62%), 80% (95% CI 38% to 96%) and 60% (95% CI 23% to 88%), and specificities were 94% (95% CI 88% to 97%), 40% (95% CI 32% to 49%) and 81% (95% CI 73% to 87%) for CURB-65, PMEWS and CAT, respectively. Conclusions Although limited by a paucity of cases, this research shows that current triage methods for suspected pandemic influenza did not reliably discriminate between patients with good and poor outcomes.

PMID:
21586758
[PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21586758
 
Back
Top Bottom