Abstract
Objectives Emergency department clinicians can use triage tools to predict adverse outcome and support management decisions for children presenting with suspected COVID-19. We aimed to estimate the accuracy of triage tools for predicting severe illness in children presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected COVID-19 infection.
Methods We undertook a mixed prospective and retrospective observational cohort study in 44 EDs across the United Kingdom (UK). We collected data from children attending with suspected COVID-19 between 26 March 2020 and 28 May 2020, and used presenting data to determine the results of assessment using the WHO algorithm, swine flu hospital pathway for children (SFHPC), Paediatric Observation Priority Score (POPS) and Children’s Observation and Severity Tool (COAST). We recorded 30-day outcome data (death or receipt of respiratory, cardiovascular or renal support) to determine prognostic accuracy for adverse outcome.
Results We collected data from 1530 children, including 26 (1.7%) with an adverse outcome. C-statistics were 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.73-0.87) for the WHO algorithm, 0.80 (0.71-0.90) for POPS, 0.76 (0.67-0.85) for COAST, and 0.71 (0.59-0.82) for SFHPC. Using pre-specified thresholds, the WHO algorithm had the highest sensitivity (0.85) and lowest specificity (0.75), but POPS and COAST could optimise sensitivity (0.96 and 0.92 respectively) at the expense of specificity (0.25 and 0.38 respectively) by using a threshold of any score above zero instead of the pre-specified threshold.
Conclusion Existing triage tools have good but not excellent prediction for adverse outcome in children with suspected COVID-19. POPS and COAST could achieve an appropriate balance of sensitivity and specificity for supporting decisions to discharge home by considering any score above zero to be positive.
Registration ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN28342533, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN28342533
Competing Interest Statement
All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: grant funding to their employing institutions from the National Institute for Health Research; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Clinical Trial
ISRCTN28342533
Clinical Protocols
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/scharr/research/centres/cure/priest
http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN28342533
https://www.fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/11/46/07
Funding Statement
The PRIEST study was funded by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme (project reference 11/46/07). The funder played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The North West - Haydock Research Ethics Committee gave a favourable opinion on the PAINTED study on 25 June 2012 (reference 12/NW/0303) and on the updated PRIEST study on 23rd March 2020. The Confidentiality Advisory Group of the Health Research Authority granted approval to collect data without patient consent in line with Section 251 of the National Health Service Act 2006.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
b.d.thomas{at}sheffield.ac.uk, s.goodacre{at}sheffield.ac.uk, s.goodacre{at}sheffield.ac.uk, l.j.sutton{at}sheffield.ac.uk, m.bursnall{at}sheffield.ac.uk, a.loban{at}sheffield.ac.uk, a.loban{at}sheffield.ac.uk, a.loban{at}sheffield.ac.uk, c.marincowitz{at}sheffield.ac.uk, c.marincowitz{at}sheffield.ac.uk, c.marincowitz{at}sheffield.ac.uk, e.m.sheldon{at}sheffield.ac.uk, jamie.hall{at}sheffield.ac.u, e.l.young{at}sheffield.ac.uk, andrew.bentley{at}manchester.ac.uk, kirsty.challen{at}lthtr.nhs.uk, c.fitzsimmons{at}nhs.net, c.fitzsimmons{at}nhs.net, f.e.lecky{at}sheffield.ac.uk, andrew.lee{at}sheffield.ac.uk, I.maconochie{at}ic.ac.uk, darren.walter{at}manchester.ac.uk
Added an author (statistician) that should have been included initially.
Data Availability
Anonymised data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request (contact details on first page). The Confidentiality Advisory Group of the Health Research Authority will need to consider any requests for data to be used for purposes other than those specified in our application, so a data request should be accompanied by explanation of the purpose of the request and justification of the public benefit. We also recommend inclusion of a pre-specified plan of analysis.
