who are involved in the conception and design of the study, the conduct of the trial, the analysis of the results, and reporting and presentation of study findings. Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTRN 12619000876190). V.8 15 October 2020.V.8 15 October 2020. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, early identification of patients who are likely to get worse is a major concern. Severity mainly depends on the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with a predominance of subpleural lesions. Lung point-of-care ultrasonography (L-POCUS) is highly effective in detecting pulmonary peripheral patterns and may be appropriate for examining patients with COVID-19. We suggest that L-POCUS performed during the initial examination may identify patients with COVID-19 who are at a high risk of complicated treatment or unfavourable evolution. Point-of-care ultrasonography for risk stratification of non-critical COVID-19 patients on admission is a prospective, multicentre study. Adult patients visiting the emergency department (ED) of participating centres for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 are assessed for inclusion. Included patients have L-POCUS performed within 48 hours following ED admission. The severity of lung damage is assessed using the L-POCUS score based on 36 points for ARDS. Apart from the L-POCUS score assessment, patients are treated as recommended by the WHO. For hospitalised patients, a second L-POCUS is performed at day 5±3. A follow-up is carried out on day 14, and the patient's status according to the Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement for COVID-19 from the WHO is recorded.The primary outcome is the rate of patients requiring intubation or who are dead from any cause during the 14 days following inclusion. We will determine the area under the ROC curve of L-POCUS. The protocol has been approved by the French and Belgian Ethics Committees and is carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice guidelines. The study is funding by a grant from the French Health Ministry, and its findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific conferences. NCT04338100.NCT04338100. Patients surviving critical illnesses, such as sepsis, often suffer from long-term complications. After discharge from hospital, most patients are treated in primary care. Little is known how general practitioners (GPs) perform critical illness aftercare and how it can be improved. Within a randomised controlled trial, an outreach training programme has been developed and applied. The aim of this study is to describe GPs' views and experiences of caring for postsepsis patients and of participating a specific outreach training. Semistructured qualitative interviews. 14 primary care practices in the metropolitan area of Berlin, Germany. 14 GPs who had participated in a structured sepsis aftercare programme in primary care. Themes identified in sepsis aftercare were continuity of care and good relationship with patients, GP's experiences during their patient's critical illness and impact of persisting symptoms. An outreach education as part of the intervention was considered by the GPs to be acceptable, helpful to improve knowledge of the management of postintensive care complications and useful for sepsis aftercare in daily practice. GPs provide continuity of care to patients surviving sepsis. Better communication at the intensive care unit-GP interface and training in management of long-term complications of sepsis may be helpful to improve sepsis aftercare. ISRCTN61744782.ISRCTN61744782. Mortality prediction scores are increasingly being evaluated in low and middle income countries (LMICs) for research comparisons, quality improvement and clinical decision-making. The modified early warning score (MEWS), quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), and Universal Vital Assessment (UVA) score use variables that are feasible to obtain, and have demonstrated potential to predict mortality in LMIC cohorts. To determine the predictive capacity of adapted MEWS, qSOFA and UVA in a Rwandan hospital. We prospectively collected data on all adult patients admitted to a tertiary hospital in Rwanda with suspected infection over 7 months. We calculated an adapted MEWS, qSOFA and UVA score for each participant. The predictive capacity of each score was assessed including sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, OR, area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) and performance by underlying risk quartile. We screened 19 178 patient days, and enrolled 6udy of inpatients with suspected infection at a Rwandan tertiary hospital. Careful consideration must be given to their adequacy before using them in research comparisons, quality improvement or clinical decision-making. Prevention of falls and fall-related injuries is a priority due to the substantial health and financial burden of falls on patients and healthcare systems. Deprescribing medications known as 'fall-risk increasing drugs' (FRIDs) is a common strategy to prevent falls. Bisindolylmaleimide IX We conducted a systematic review to determine its efficacy for the prevention of falls and fall-related complications. Systematic review and meta-analysis. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL and grey literature from inception to 1 August 2020. Randomised controlled trials of FRID withdrawal compared with usual care evaluating the rate of falls, incidence of falls, fall-related injuries, fall-related fractures, fall-related hospitalisations or adverse effects related to the intervention in adults aged ≥65 years. Two reviewers independently performed citation screening, data abstraction, risk of bias assessment and certainty of evidence grading. Random-effects models were used for meta-analyses. Five trials involving 1305 participants met eligibility criteria. Deprescribing FRIDs did not change the rate of falls (rate ratio (RaR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.51), the incidence of falls (risk difference 0.01, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.09; relative risk 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.26) or rate of fall-related injuries (RaR 0.89, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.39) over a follow-up period of 6-12 months. No trials evaluated the impact of deprescribing FRIDs on fall-related fractures or hospitalisations. There is a paucity of robust high-quality evidence to support or refute that a FRID deprescribing strategy alone is effective at preventing falls or fall-related injury in older adults. Although there may be other reasons to deprescribe FRIDs, our systematic review found that it may result in little to no difference in the rate or risk of falls as a sole falls reduction strategy. CRD42016040203.CRD42016040203.