Abstract
Objective To assess accuracy of telephone triage in identifying patients who need emergency care amongst those with suspected COVID-19 infection and identify factors which affect triage accuracy.
Design Observational cohort study
Setting Community telephone triage in the Yorkshire and Humber, Bassetlaw, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire region.
Participants 40, 261 adults who contacted NHS 111 telephone triage services provided by Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust between the 18th March 2020 and 29th June 2020 with symptoms indicating possible COVID-19 infection were linked to Office for National Statistics death registration data, hospital and general practice electronic health care data collected by NHS Digital.
Outcome Accuracy of triage disposition (self-care/non-urgent clinical assessment versus ambulance dispatch/urgent clinical assessment) was assessed in terms of death or need for organ support at 30, 7 and 3 days from first contact with the telephone triage service.
Results Callers had a 3% (1, 200/40, 261) risk of adverse outcome. Telephone triage recommended self-care or non-urgent assessment for 60% (24, 335/40, 261), with a 1.3% (310/24, 335) risk of subsequent adverse outcome. Telephone triage had 74.2% sensitivity (95% CI: 71.6 to 76.6%) and 61.5% specificity (61% to 62%) for adverse outcomes at 30 days from first contact. Multivariable analysis suggested some co-morbidities (such as chronic respiratory disease) may be over-estimated as predictors of adverse outcome, while the association of diabetes with adverse outcome may be under-estimated. Repeat contact with the service appears to be an important under recognised predictor of adverse outcomes with both 2 contacts (OR 1.77 95% CI: 1.14 to 2.75) and 3 or more contacts (OR 4.02 95% CI: 1.68 to 9.65) associated with clinical deterioration when not provided with an ambulance or urgent clinical assessment.
Conclusion Patients advised to self-care or receive non-urgent clinical assessment had a small but non-negligible risk of serious clinical deterioration. The sensitivity and specificity of telephone triage was comparable to other tools used to triage patient acuity in emergency and urgent care. Repeat contact with telephone services needs recognition as an important predictor of subsequent adverse outcomes.
What is already known on this topic
Telephone triage has been used to divert patients with suspected COVID-19 to self care or for non-urgent clinical assessments, and thereby help mitigate the risk of health services being overwhelmed by patients who require no speficic treatment.
Concerns have been raised that telephone triage may not be sufficiently accurate in identifying need for emergency care. However, no previous evaluation of accuracy of telephone triage in patients with suspected COVID-19 infection has been completed.
What this study adds
Patients advised to self care or receive non-urgent clinical assessment had a small but non-negligible risk of deterioration and significant adverse outcomes.
Telephone triage has comparable performance to methods used to triage patient acuity in other emergency and urgent care settings.
Accuracy of triage may be improved by better recognition of multiple contact with services as a predictor of adverse outcomes.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN28342533
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
Data Availability
Primary data from this study is not available for sharing from the study team. Data contained from this article is attenable from NHS digital and Yorkshire Ambulance service, following their procedures.
