ArticleFamily practice2021
NEWS2 to assess suspected COVID-19 in the community: a service evaluation of a primary care assessment centre.
Article in Family practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Timely identification of deteriorating patients from acute respiratory infections at the primary care level in the COVID-19 era: quality improvement collaborative.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Implementation of a digital early warning score (NEWS2) in a cardiac specialist and general hospital settings in the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.BMJ open quality · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrimary care has played a central role in the community response to the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. The use of the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) has been advocated as a tool to guide escalation decisions in the community. The performance of this tool applied in this context is unclear.
aimTo evaluate the process of escalation of care to the hospital within a primary care assessment centre (PCAC) designed to assess patients with suspected COVID-19 in the community. DESIGN AND
settingA retrospective service evaluation of all adult patients assessed between 30 March and 22 April 2020 within a COVID-19 primary care assessment centre within Sandwell West Birmingham CCG.
methodA database of patient demographics, healthcare interactions and physiological observations was constructed. NEWS2 and CRB65 scores were calculated retrospectively. The proportion of patients escalated was within risk groups defined by NHSE guidelines in place during the evaluation period was determined.
resultsA total of 150 patients were identified. Following assessment 13.3% (n = 20) patients were deemed to require escalation. The proportion of patients escalated with a NEWS2 greater than or equal to 3 was 46.9% (95% CI 30.8-63.6%). The proportion of patients escalated to secondary care using NHSE defined risk thresholds was 0% in the green group, 22% (n = 4) in the amber group, and 81.3% (n = 13) in the red group.
conclusionClinical decisions to escalate care to the hospital did not follow initial guidance written for the COVID-19 outbreak but were demonstrated to be safe.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.