Emergency department response to coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak with a fever screening station and "graded approach" for isolation and testing. Issue 11 (4th September 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chang, Julia Chia-Yu; Chen, You-Hsu; Lin, Meng-Chen; Li, Yi-Jing; Hsu, Teh-Fu; Huang, Hsien-Hao; Yen, David Hung-Tsang
• Is Part Of: Journal of the Chinese Medical Association. Volume 83:Issue 11(2020)
• Page Start: 997
• Page End: 1003
• Publication Date: 2020-09-04
• Subjects: Coronavirus -- Emergency service -- hospital -- Infection control; Medicine -- Periodicals; 610.5
• DOI: 10.1097/JCMA.0000000000000420
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1726-4901

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Ever since coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emerged in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, it has had a devastating effect on the world through exponential case growth and death tolls in at least 146 countries. Rapid response and timely modifications in the emergency department (ED) for infection control are paramount to maintaining basic medical services and preventing the spread of COVID-19. This study presents the unique measure of combining a fever screening station (FSS) and graded approach to isolation and testing in a Taiwanese medical center. Methods: An FSS was immediately set up outside the ED on January 27, 2019. A graded approach was adopted to stratify patients into "high risk, " "intermediate risk, " and "undetermined risk" for both isolation and testing. Results: A total of 3755 patients were screened at the FSS, with 80.3% visiting the ED from home, 70.9% having no travel history, 21.4% having traveled to Asia, and 10.0% of TVGH staff. Further, 54.9% had fever, 35.5% had respiratory symptoms, 3.2% had gastrointestinal symptoms, 0.6% experienced loss of smell, and 3.1% had no symptoms; 81.3% were discharged, 18.6% admitted, and 0.1% died. About 1.9% were admitted to the intensive care unit, 10.3% to the general ward, and 6.4% were isolated. Two patients tested positive for COVID-19 (0.1%) and 127 (3.4%) tested positive for atypical infection; 1471 patients were tested for COVID-19; 583 were stratified as high-risk, 781 as intermediate-risk, and 107 as undetermined-risk patients. Conclusion: Rapid response for infection control is a paramount in the ED to confront the COVID-19 outbreak. The FFS helped divide the flow of high- and intermediate-risk patients; it also decreased the ED workload during a surge of febrile patients. A graded approach to testing uses risk stratification to prevent nosocomial infection of asymptomatic patients. A graded approach to isolation enables efficient allocation of scarce medical resources according to risk stratification.