As the COVID-19 pandemic continues over the months ahead, emergency department (ED) clinicians will require real-time tools and data to guide clinical decision making. Although public health measures have been successful at reducing the incidence of COVID-19 in Australia, the easing of restrictions, and the threat of a second wave, present new challenges for frontline staff. 1,2 ED clinicians will need to remain vigilant, maintaining an awareness of risk factors, predictors and outcomes for patients with COVID-19.
Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 continues to be based on specific criteria and, outside of targeted surveillance programs, screening of asymptomatic patients is not recommended. Case definitions have evolved rapidly, however, and in Victoria, Australia, criteria for testing were expanded significantly in mid-April. Current statewide guidance requires testing of patients with fever OR chills in the absence of an alternative diagnosis that explains the clinical presentation OR acute respiratory infection (e.g. cough, sore throat, shortness of breath, runny nose or anosmia). In addition, testing is recommended for patients with new onset of other clinical symptoms consistent with COVID-19 (such as headache, myalgia, stuffy nose, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea), and who are close contacts of a confirmed case of COVID-19, have returned from overseas in the past 14 days or are healthcare or aged care workers. 3 The COVID-19 Emergency Department (COVED) Quality Improvement Project continues to monitor the clinical features and outcomes of patients presenting to ED with suspected COVID-19. As cases accumulate, the COVED Project aims to determine and report the clinical and epidemiological predictors of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result and the requirement for intensive respiratory support among patients presenting to the ED with suspected COVID-19. 4 The objective of this analysis (COVED-2) is to report the results for the first month of the COVED Project: 1 to 30 April 2020.
COVED is an ongoing prospective cohort study that commenced on 1 April 2020. The study protocol has been published previously. 4 Accepted Article This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
The study includes adult patients that had a SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test requested in the ED. As outlined above, testing criteria are defined by the Victorian Government, and broadened significantly from 14 April. 3 As part of COVED, clinical details for patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 are collected prospectively using a dedicated form embedded in the hospital's electronic medical record (EMR) system. Data are subsequently entered into a novel registry utilising Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) tools, hosted and managed by Helix (Monash University). 5 Administrative data are exported directly from the EMR.
The EMR form and REDCap database have been designed so that they can be updated with additional variables as new information regarding COVID-19 emerges. Current versions of the data dictionary and case report form are available on The Alfred Hospital's academic programs website at https://emergencyeducation.org.au/research/coved/.
This analysis (COVED-2) describes study findings for all eligible patients that presented to The Alfred Emergency and Trauma Centre between 1 and 30 April 2020. The Alfred Hospital is a tertiary, adult, Level 1 trauma centre with an annual ED census of approximately 70,000. A co-located but geographically separate screening clinic for COVID-19 was operational during the study period, but not under the governance of the ED. Patients who attended the screening clinic and did not present for medical assessment in the ED were excluded.
Outcome measures include a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test result and requirement for intensive respiratory support. A complete list of additional variables has previously been published in the study protocol. 4 These include history (age, sex, symptoms and duration of presenting complaint, epidemiological features, co-morbidities), findings on clinical examination, radiological and blood investigations, care provided in the ED and hospital (including commencement of mechanical invasive ventilation and ED disposition destination) and patient outcomes (including survival to discharge). COVED variables and definitions have been harmonised with international COVID-19 research tools developed by the World Health Organization and International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium. 6 For the purposes of this analysis, summary descriptive statistics have been determined for the prespecified variables across all patients meeting inclusion criteria. This data has also been stratified by Accepted Article 6 SARS-CoV-2 test result. Among this group of symptomatic patients, the definition of a COVID-19 diagnosis used for COVED-2, as for COVED-1, was the existence of a positive test result from a SARS-CoV-2 PCR swab taken either prior to, or during the hospital presentation. 7 According to the study protocol, inferential analyses (comparing predictors and outcomes by SARS-CoV-2 test result, with summary measures of association and 95% confidence intervals) were only to be conducted if the number of SARS-CoV-2 positive cases allowed for a valid analysis. That is not the case for the first full month of the Project, and COVED-2 is therefore limited to descriptive statistics.
Symmetrical numerical data have been summarised using the mean and standard deviation; skewed and ordinal data has been summarised using the median and inter-quartile range; and categorical data have been summarised using the frequency and percentage. To examine the trend in count data (i.e. presentation rate) over the study period, negative binomial regression methods were employed, and these results were summarised using incident rate ratios (IRRs). Data were analysed 
Over the study period of 30 days, there were 3453 presentations to the ED. Of these, 702 (20%; 95% CI: 19-22) had a SARS-CoV-2 test requested and were included in this analysis ( Figure 1 ). The daily number of eligible (suspected COVID-19) patients presenting to the ED increased during the study period (IRR 1.019; 95% CI: 1.017-1.021, p<0.001). SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 14 (2%; 95% CI: 1-3) cases ( Figure 2 ). Table 1 describes the clinical features of patients who underwent SARS-CoV-2 PCR swab testing in the ED. The mean (SD) age was 57 (22) years, and 392 (56%) were male. There were 17 (2%) patients who were transferred from another hospital, and 363 (52%) arrived by road ambulance. The most frequent triage category assigned continues to be Category 3 (n=351 (50%)), followed by Category 2 (n=168 (24%)).
Regarding history and clinical examination findings, the most common presenting complaints were acute shortness of breath (n=339 (58%)) and acute cough (n=303 (50%)). The median (IQR) number of days between first symptom and ED presentation was 3 (IQR 1-7) days. The proportion of SARS-Accepted Article 7 CoV-2-tested patients living in a residential aged care facility was 10% (n=62). There were no health care workers (HCWs) in the study sample. Almost one fifth of patients (n=118 (17%)) had been tested for SARS-CoV-2 prior to their ED presentation, of whom 8 (1%) were reported to be SARS-CoV-2 positive. Abnormal vital signs were reported as hypoxia in 33 (5%), hypotension in 32 (5%), tachycardia in 209 (30%) and fever in 75 (11%) patients on their initial vital signs in the ED. Table 2 provides the descriptive statistics for the investigations, care and outcomes of patients for whom a SARS-CoV-2 PCR swab test was conducted in the ED. There were 554 (79%) patients who had a chest x-ray, 40 (7%) of which were reported by a radiologist as having bilateral infiltrates.
According to blood tests performed in the ED, 187 (29%) had a leucocytosis and 146 (26%) had a CRP of greater than 50 mg/L. Among patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the most common reported symptoms were shortness of breath (77%), fatigue (100%), myalgia (67%) and diarrhoea (67%). Among other variables considered to confer an increased risk of COVID-19, close contact (9%), fever (0%) and being a healthcare worker (0%) were uncommon. Half reported a history of overseas travel.
Mechanical ventilation was commenced in the ED for 21 (3%) tested patients, but none had a positive result for SARS-CoV-2. From the ED, 300 (43%) patients were admitted to the general ward and 29 (4%) to the intensive care unit (ICU), proportions that were consistent across the study month. During the study period, 29 (4%) patients died in hospital, of which none had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
In the first full month of the COVED Project, the daily number and proportion of patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test remained relatively low, but the rate of patients presenting to the ED with suspected COVID-19 increased significantly. Despite the low number of positive cases, this study highlights the substantial burden to EDs from patients suspected of COVID-19. The low number of hospitalised positive cases precluded the development of predictive tools, but previously identified epidemiological and clinical risk factors (such as overseas travel, sick contacts and fever) were uncommon among patients who tested positive for SARS-COv-2.
Infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures for patients meeting criteria for suspected COVID-19 stipulate that they are managed as if SARS-CoV-2 positive until negative test results are returned.
While these infection control measures are warranted, the significant number of suspected cases may have a negative impact on the timeliness of patient assessment and management, as well as overall system efficiency. 8 While this impact has so far been minimised by significantly reduced ED attendance, 9 there is a risk that the EDs could soon become overwhelmed by patients requiring isolation. 8 Although it was not the primary intent of the project, COVED is adding value by providing information around the current burden of suspected COVID-19 patients in the hospital system. As the management of suspected COVID-19 patients becomes part of 'business as usual', the relevance of this data will increase. 8 It will also hopefully highlight the importance of rapid testing turn-around times as well as innovative models of care to mitigate the risk of access block and ED overcrowding.
Beyond the ongoing role of the COVED Project and COVED Registry, the demand for an ongoing source of contemporary clinical information and sentinel surveillance in EDs will persist. A registry for emergency care, with the short-term capacity to examine the impact of IPC processes on patient care, will have an essential role as a source of real-time clinical data to guide emergency care delivery and public health response, especially in the setting of communicable disease outbreaks. 15, 16 Accepted Article 9 Tools of this nature may help offset the impact of public health emergencies on Australian EDs, 17 and help drive innovative approaches to managing the risks of nosocomial transmission. 8
The low incidence of SARS-CoV-2 positive results over the first full month of the COVED Project has precluded valid inferential analyses regarding how COVID-19 patients differ in terms of their demographic features, clinical presentation, severity risk factors, need for intensive respiratory support and key outcomes. While some percentages displayed in Tables 1 and 2 may vary between those who have had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test and those who do not, these figures should be interpreted with caution. Missing data remains an issue for some variables, and continual efforts will be required to increase the level of data completeness for those variables needing to be extracted manually from the EMR form used by ED clinicians.
During the study period, Victorian Government testing criteria broadened significantly. From 14
April, testing was recommended for any patient with fever OR chills in the absence of an alternative diagnosis that explains the clinical presentation OR acute respiratory infection characterised by cough, sore throat or shortness of breath. Additionally, patients with recent onset of other clinical symptoms consistent with COVID-19 (headache, myalgia, runny or stuffy nose, anosmia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea), who are close contacts of a confirmed case of COVID-19 or who have returned from overseas in the past 14 days were also recommended for testing. Prior to these changes, testing had been based on a combination of symptoms plus epidemiological criteria, or severe bilateral pneumonia in isolation. While the project protocol clearly stated that testing would be performed in line with contemporary criteria, these changes likely explain the increased number of patients tested, and isolated awaiting results, from the middle of April.
Among patients presenting to a tertiary Australian ED in April 2020, an increasing number met testing criteria for COVID-19. While relatively few had a positive test for SARS-CoV-2, the IPC burden of suspected COVID-19 cases is significant. The low incidence of SARS-CoV-2 positive cases currently precludes the development of accurate predictive tools.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
As physical distancing requirements are relaxed, and testing criteria are broadened, an increasing number of ED patients are likely to require isolation. This is likely to create inefficiencies and impediments to patient flow, potentially increasing the risk of access block and ED overcrowding. Public transport 50 (7) 