Skip to main content
eScholarship
Open Access Publications from the University of California

Electronic Health Record-Based Surveillance for Community Transmitted COVID-19 in the Emergency Department

  • Author(s): Pulia, Michael S.
  • Hekman, Daniel J.
  • Glazer, Joshua M.
  • Barclay-Buchanan, Ciara
  • Kuehnel, Nicholas
  • Ross, Joshua
  • Sharp, Brian
  • Batt, Robert
  • Patterson, Brian W.
  • et al.
Creative Commons 'BY' version 4.0 license
Abstract

Introduction: SARS-CoV-2, a novel coronavirus, manifests as a respiratory syndrome (COVID-19) and is the cause of an ongoing pandemic. The response to COVID-19 in the United States has been hampered by an overall lack of diagnostic testing capacity. To address uncertainty about ongoing levels of SARS-CoV-2 community transmission early in the pandemic, we aimed to develop a surveillance tool using readily available emergency department (ED) operations data extracted from the electronic health record (EHR). This involved optimizing the identification of acute respiratory infection (ARI)-related encounters and then comparing metrics for these encounters before and after the confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 community transmission.

Methods: We performed an observational study using operational EHR data from two Midwest EDs with a combined annual census of over 80,000. Data were collected three weeks before and after the first confirmed case of local SARS-CoV-2 community transmission. To optimize capture of ARI cases, we compared various metrics including chief complaint, discharge diagnoses, and ARI-related orders. Operational metrics for ARI cases, including volume, pathogen identification, and illness severity, were compared between the pre- and post-community transmission timeframes using chi-square tests of independence.

Results: Compared to our combined definition of ARI, chief complaint, discharge diagnoses, and isolation orders individually identified less than half of the cases. Respiratory pathogen testing was the top performing individual ARI definition but still only identified 72.2% of cases. From the pre to post periods, we observed significant increases in ED volumes due to ARI and ARI cases without identified pathogen.

Conclusion: Certain methods for identifying ARI cases in the ED may be inadequate and multiple criteria should be used to optimize capture. In the absence of widely available SARS-CoV-2 testing, operational metrics for ARI-related encounters, especially the proportion of cases involving negative pathogen testing, are useful indicators for active surveillance of potential COVID-19 related ED visits.

Main Content
Current View