Objective The aim of this study was to describe the epidemiology and clinical features of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected and confirmed COVID‐19. Methods The COVID‐19 Emergency Department (COVED) Project is an ongoing prospective cohort study in Australian EDs. This analysis presents data from eight sites across Victoria and Tasmania for July 2020 (during Australia's ‘second wave’). All adult patients who met criteria for ‘suspected COVID‐19’ and underwent testing for SARS‐CoV‐2 in the ED were eligible for inclusion. Study outcomes included a positive SARS‐CoV‐2 test result and mechanical ventilation. Results In the period 1 to 31 July 2020, there were 30 378 presentations to the participating EDs and 2917 (9.6%; 95% CI: 9.3–9.9) underwent testing for SARS‐CoV‐2. Of these, 50 (2%) patients returned a positive result. Among positive cases, two (4%) received mechanical ventilation during their hospital admission compared to 45 (2%) of the SARS‐CoV‐2 negative patients (OR 1.7 [95% CI: 0.4–7.3], p = 0.47). Two (4%) SARS‐CoV‐2 positive patients died in hospital compared to 46 (2%) of the SARS‐CoV‐2 negative patients (OR 1.7 [0.4–7.1] p = 0.49). Strong clinical predictors of a positive result included self‐reported fever, non‐smoking status, bilateral infiltrates on CXR, and absence of a leucocytosis on first ED blood tests (p < 0.05). Conclusions In this prospective multi‐site study from July 2020, a substantial proportion of ED patients required SARS‐CoV‐2 testing, isolation and enhanced infection prevention and control precautions. Presence of SARS‐CoV‐2 on nasopharyngeal swab was not associated with death or mechanical ventilation. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Objective: The aim of the present study was to describe the epidemiological and clinical features of ED patients with suspected and confirmed COVID-19. Methods: The COVID-19 Emergency Department (COVED) Project is an ongoing prospective cohort study that includes all adult patients presenting to The Alfred Hospital ED who undergo testing for SARS-CoV-2. Current guidelines recommend testing for patients with fevers or chills, acute respiratory symptoms or a high-risk exposure history, as well as implementation of infection prevention and control precautions for all suspected and confirmed cases. Study outcomes include a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result and intensive respiratory support. Results: In the period 1-30 April 2020, 702 of 3453 ED patients (20%; 95% CI 19-22) were tested, with a significant increase during the study period (incident rate ratio 1.019; 95% confidence interval 1.017-1.021, P < 0.001). The primary outcome of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test was recorded in 14 patients (2%; 95% confidence interval 1-3). Shortness of breath (77%), fatigue (100%), myalgia (67%) and diarrhoea (67%) were common among positive cases, while close contact (9%), fever (0%) and healthcare occupation (0%) were not. No positive cases required intensive respiratory support in the ED. Conclusions: The volume of ED patients with suspected COVID-19 is increasing. Low numbers of positive cases precluded development of accurate predictive tools, but the COVED Project is fulfilling an important role in monitoring the burden of infection prevention and control requirements on the ED. The

Objective: The objective was to identify, screen, highlight, review, and summarize some of the most rigorously conducted and impactful original research (OR) and review articles (RE) in global emergency medicine (EM) published in 2020 in the peerreviewed and gray literature. Methods: A broad systematic search of peer-reviewed publications related to global EM indexed on PubMed and in the gray literature was conducted. The titles and abstracts of the articles on this list were screened by members of the Global Emergency Medicine Literature Review (GEMLR) Group to identify those that met our criteria of OR or RE in the domains of disaster and humanitarian response (DHR), emergency care in resource-limited settings (ECRLS), and EM development. Those articles that | 1329 TREHAN ET Al.

ObjectivesThe Global Emergency Medicine Literature Review (GEMLR) conducts a systematic annual search of peer‐reviewed and gray literature relevant to global emergency medicine (EM) to identify, review, and disseminate the most rigorously conducted and widely relevant research in global EM.MethodsAn electronic search of PubMed, a comprehensive retrieval of articles from specific journals, and search of the gray literature were conducted. Title and abstracts retrieved by these searches were screened by a total of 22 reviewers based on their relevance to the field of global EM, across the domains of disaster and humanitarian response (DHR), emergency care in resource‐limited settings (ECRLS), and emergency medicine development (EMD). All articles that were deemed relevant by at least one reviewer, their editor, and the managing editor underwent formal scoring of overall methodologic quality and importance to global EM. Two independent reviewers scored all articles; editors provided a third score in cases of widely discrepant scores.ResultsA total of 19,102 articles were identified by the searches and, after screening and removal of duplicates, a total of 517 articles underwent full review. Twenty‐five percent were categorized as DHR, 61% as ECRLS, and 15% as EMD. Inter‐rater reliability testing between the reviewers revealed a Cohen's kappa score of 0.213 when considering the complete score or 0.426 when excluding the more subjective half of the score. A total of 25 articles scored higher than 17.5 of 20; these were selected for a full summary and critique.ConclusionsIn 2018, the total number of articles relevant to global EM that were identified by our search continued to increase. Studies and reviews focusing on pediatric infections, several new and traditionally underrepresented topics, and landscape reviews that may help guide clinical care in new settings represented the majority of top‐scoring articles. A shortage of articles related to the development of EM as a specialty was identified.

No abstract