Objectives: The World Health Organisation (WHO) and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommend various triage tools to assist decision-making for patients with suspected COVID-19. We aimed to estimate the accuracy of triage tools for predicting severe illness in adults presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected COVID-19 infection. Methods: We undertook a mixed prospective and retrospective observational cohort study in 70 EDs across the United Kingdom (UK). We collected data from people attending with suspected COVID-19 between 26 March 2020 and 28 May 2020, and used presenting data to determine the results of assessment with the following triage tools: the WHO algorithm, NEWS2, CURB-65, CRB-65, PMEWS and the swine flu adult hospital pathway (SFAHP). We used 30-day outcome data (death or receipt of respiratory, cardiovascular or renal support) to determine prognostic accuracy for adverse outcome. Results: We analysed data from 20892 adults, of whom 4672 (22.4%) died or received organ support (primary outcome), with 2058 (9.9%) receiving organ support and 2614 (12.5%) dying without organ support (secondary outcomes). C-statistics for the primary outcome were: CURB-65 0.75; CRB-65 0.70; PMEWS 0.77; NEWS2 (score) 0.77; NEWS2 (rule) 0.69; SFAHP (6-point) 0.70; SFAHP (7-point) 0.68; WHO algorithm 0.61. All triage tools showed worse prediction for receipt of organ support and better prediction for death without organ support. At the recommended threshold, PMEWS and the WHO criteria showed good sensitivity (0.96 and 0.95 respectively), at the expense of specificity (0.31 and 0.27 respectively). NEWS2 showed similar sensitivity (0.96) and specificity (0.28) when a lower threshold than recommended was used. Conclusion: CURB-65, PMEWS and NEWS2 provide good but not excellent prediction for adverse outcome in suspected COVID-19, and predicted death without organ support better than receipt of organ support. PMEWS, the WHO criteria and NEWS2 (using a lower threshold than usually recommended) provide good sensitivity at the expense of specificity.

Objective: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of a modified form of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for recurrent non-cardiac chest pain. Methods: We tested the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a modified form of CBT for chest pain (CBT-CP)(4-10 sessions) in patients who attended cardiology clinics or emergency medical services repeatedly. Patients were randomised using a remote web-based system to CBT-CP or to standard care in the clinic. Assessments were made at baseline and at 6 months and 12 months. The primary outcome was the change in the Health Anxiety Inventory Score at 6 months. Other clinical measures, social functioning, quality of life and costs of services were also recorded. Results: Sixty-eight patients were randomised with low attrition rates at 6 months and 12 months with 81% of all possible assessments completed at 6 months and 12 months. Although there were no significant group differences between any of the outcome measures at either 6 months or 12 months, patients receiving CBT-CP had between two and three times fewer hospital bed days, outpatient appointments, and A&E attendances than those allocated to standard care and total costs per patient were £1496.49 lower, though the differences in costs were not significant. There was a small non-significant gain in quality adjusted life years in those allocated to CBT-CP compared with standard care (0.76 vs 0.74). Conclusions: It is concluded that CBT-CP in the context of current hospital structures is not a viable treatment, but is worthy of further research as a potentially cost-effective treatment for non-cardiac chest pain.