Keyword-based classification of symptoms retrieved in EMCC medical reports globally showed good performances. All six symptoms were cited in an unprecedented number of calls during the COVID-19 epidemic, and were present in up to 44% of call reports during the peak of the epidemic on March 14, 2020. The breakdown of calls by symptoms during the COVID-19 crisis paralleled the natural history of the disease [6], with cough, fever and muscle soreness, followed by dyspnea, ageusia and anosmia. A delay was observed between the rise in calls for flu-like symptoms and the rise in ER visits for suspected COVID-19.
The curve began to rise 20 days before the increase in ER visits. One could hypothesize that the peak of calls recorded around March 14 was due to the concern, if not anxiety, caused by the announcement on television of the closure of public places by the French President on that day. However, in a more affected part of the country, the Ile-de-France region, the peak was reached much (10 days) earlier [7], suggesting that most of the calls we recorded were more motivated by symptoms than by concerns raised by communication by the authorities. EMCC call content is therefore probably the most predictive early indicator of the start of the epidemic, as recently shown by Riou and colleagues who found in the Ile-de-France region a strong correlation between calls regarding suspected COVID-19 and the number of patients in intensive care, with a delay of 23 days [7]. However, while the number of calls for flu-like symptoms proved to be an early and relevant signal, its intensity was probably increased by the authorities’ request to citizens not to go directly to the ER and to contact instead the EMCC.
In the context of the COVID-19 epidemic, several research teams have used a similar approach, attempting to investigate the internet or social media to build early indicators of the epidemic [8, 9]. However, no such signal could be found from a Google keyword search [1, 10], as the peak for cough, fever, coronavirus or COVID-19 was not reached until the week of 15–21 March.
Generalizability and limitations
Not all calls are handled by EMCC, a proportion of them remain unanswered and this proportion increases during peak periods. It is therefore likely that around March 14 the number of attempted calls was higher than those handled. The study was done in Gironde, a department with a reportedly low rate of SARS-Cov-2 infection if compared to the Ile-de-France and the north-east regions of France. However, lockdown and fear of the epidemic affected all French people and the Gironde EMCC are the third largest in terms of the number of calls received in France, which has made it possible to build up a sufficiently large database.
Our study spans nearly 16 years and we cannot rule out that the way in which the reports were written may have changed over this period. The role of assistants changed in 2008 with a subdivision of the work, one assistant dealing with the reception of the call (geographical coordinates, reasons) and another one dealing with the clinical evaluation transmitted by the field emergency services. It is unlikely, however, that this change modified the likelihood of symptom-related keyword occurrence. During the COVID-19 crisis, assistants can be expected to ask questions more systematically about symptoms as rare as ageusia and anosmia. The clear time lag between the peak of fever and cough and the peak of anosmia/ageusia suggests, however, that their occurrence is not only the result of a systematic question for patients with influenza-like symptoms. Ideally, the classification of call reasons would be validated by a final diagnosis made by a practitioner, for example during the ER visit. This proved infeasible because the individual identification number is not reported in call reports. In addition, ER visits corresponds to only a portion of calls.