Objectives

Estimating mortality risk in hospitalised SARS-CoV-2+ patients may help with choosing level of care and discussions with patients. The Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium Mortality Score (4C Score) is a promising COVID-19 mortality risk model. We examined the association of risk factors with 30-day mortality in hospitalised, full-code SARS-CoV-2+ patients and investigated the discrimination and calibration of the 4C Score. This was a retrospective cohort study of SARS-CoV-2+ hospitalised patients within the RECOVER (REgistry of suspected COVID-19 in EmeRgency care) network.

Setting

99 emergency departments (EDs) across the USA.

Participants

Patients ≥18 years old, positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the ED, and hospitalised.

Primary outcome

Death within 30 days of the index visit. We performed logistic regression analysis, reporting multivariable risk ratios (MVRRs) and calculated the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) and mean prediction error for the original 4C Score and after dropping the C reactive protein (CRP) component.

Results

Of 6802 hospitalised patients with COVID-19, 1149 (16.9%) died within 30 days. The 30-day mortality was increased with age 80+ years (MVRR=5.79, 95% CI 4.23 to 7.34); male sex (MVRR=1.17, 1.05 to 1.28); and nursing home/assisted living facility residence (MVRR=1.29, 1.1 to 1.48). The 4C Score had comparable discrimination in the RECOVER dataset compared with the original 4C validation dataset (AUROC: RECOVER 0.786 (95% CI 0.773 to 0.799), 4C validation 0.763 (95% CI 0.757 to 0.769). Score-specific mortalities in our sample were lower than in the 4C validation sample (mean prediction error 6.0%). Dropping the CRP component from the 4C Score did not substantially affect discrimination and 4C risk estimates were now close (mean prediction error 0.7%).

Conclusions

We independently validated 4C Score as predicting risk of 30-day mortality in hospitalised SARS-CoV-2+ patients. We recommend dropping the CRP component of the score and using our recalibrated mortality risk estimates.

Introduction: In the United States, more chronic and preventive healthcare is being delivered in the emergency department (ED) setting. Understanding the availability of preventive health services in the ED setting is crucial. Our goal was to understand the availability of a subset of preventive health services in US EDs and explore how that has changed over time.

Methods: In 2022–2023, using the National Emergency Department Inventory (NEDI)-USA, we surveyed a random 20% (1,064) sampling of all 5,613 US EDs. We asked directors of these EDs about the availability of and preference for 12 preventive health services, social worker availability, self-reported percentage of uninsured ED patients, and measures of ED crowding. We also asked about perceptions of barriers to implementing preventive health services in the ED. We used unadjusted and multivariable logistic regression models to compare service frequency in 2022–2023 to prior findings from 2008–2009 that represented a 5.7% random sampling of all EDs.

Results: Among 302 responders to the 2022–2023 survey (5.4% random sampling, 28.4% response rate), 94% reported offering at least one preventive health service, with a median of five services. The most common service offered was intimate partner violence screening (83%), while the least common was routine HIV screening (19%). Seven services (eg, intimate partner violence, alcohol risk, and smoking cessation screening) had a higher odds of being offered in 2022–2023 than in 2008–2009; findings were unchanged in sensitivity analyses. A small proportion of directors opposed offering preventive health services. However, many expressed concerns that preventive health services in the ED would lead to longer lengths of stay (56%), increased costs to their ED (58%), a diversion of staff time from providing acute care (50%), or that their patients would not have access to adequate follow-up (49%).

Conclusion: Nearly all EDs offer at least one preventive health service. Many offer multiple services; rates were higher than those identified in 2008–2009, in both unadjusted and multivariable models. Although limited by the response rate, this work provides the most recent and comprehensive snapshot of the type and frequency of a subset of preventive health services currently offered in US EDs.

Mutations affecting ciliary components cause ciliopathies. As described here, we investigated Tectonic1 (Tctn1), a regulator of mouse Hedgehog signaling, and found that it is essential for ciliogenesis in some, but not all, tissues. Cell types that do not require Tctn1 for ciliogenesis require it to localize select membrane-associated proteins to the cilium, including Arl13b, AC3, Smoothened and Pkd2. Tctn1 forms a complex with multiple ciliopathy proteins associated with Meckel and Joubert syndromes, including Mks1, Tmem216, Tmem67, Cep290, B9d1, Tctn2 and Cc2d2a. Components of this complex co-localize at the transition zone, a region between the basal body and ciliary axoneme. Like Tctn1, loss of Tctn2, Tmem67 or Cc2d2a causes tissue-specific defects in ciliogenesis and ciliary membrane composition. Consistent with a shared function for complex components, we identified a mutation in TCTN1 that causes Joubert syndrome. Thus, a transition zone complex of Meckel and Joubert syndrome proteins regulates ciliary assembly and trafficking, suggesting that transition zone dysfunction is the cause of these ciliopathies.