The Chest Pain Choice trial: a pilot randomized trial of a decision aid for patients with chest pain in the emergency department

Background: Chest pain is a common presenting complaint in the emergency department (ED). Despite the frequency with which clinicians evaluate patients with chest pain, accurately determining the risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and sharing risk information with patients is challenging. The aims of this study are (1) to develop a decision aid (CHEST PAIN CHOICE) that communicates the short-term risk of ACS and (2) to evaluate the impact of the decision aid on patient participation in decision-making and resource use. Methods/Design: This is a protocol for a parallel, 2-arm randomized trial to compare an intervention group receiving CHEST PAIN CHOICE to a control group receiving usual ED care. Adults presenting to the Saint Mary's Hospital ED in Rochester, MN USA with a primary complaint of chest pain who are being considered for admission for prolonged ED observation in a specialized unit and urgent cardiac stress testing will be eligible for enrollment. We will measure the effect of CHEST PAIN CHOICE on six outcomes: (1) patient knowledge regarding their short-term risk for ACS and the risks of radiation exposure; (2) quality of the decision making process; (3) patient and clinician acceptability and satisfaction with the decision aid; (4) the proportion of patients who decided to undergo observation unit admission and urgent cardiac stress testing; (5) economic costs and healthcare utilization; and (6) the rate of delayed or missed ACS. To capture these outcomes, we will administer patient and clinician surveys after each visit, obtain video recordings of the clinical encounters, and conduct 30-day phone follow-up. Discussion: This pilot randomized trial will develop and evaluate a decision aid for use in ED chest pain patients at low risk for ACS and provide a preliminary estimate of its effect on patient participation in decision-making and resource use

Headache in Pregnancy: An Approach to Emergency Department Evaluation and Management

Headache is a common presenting complaint in the emergency department. The differential diagnosis is broad and includes benign primary causes as well as ominous secondary causes. The diagnosis and management of headache in the pregnant patient presents several challenges. There are important unique considerations regarding the differential diagnosis, imaging options, and medical management. Physiologic changes induced by pregnancy increase the risk of cerebral venous thrombosis, dissection, and pituitary apoplexy. Preeclampsia, a serious condition unique to pregnancy, must also be considered. A high index of suspicion for carbon monoxide toxicity should be maintained. Primary headaches should be a diagnosis of exclusion. When advanced imaging is indicated, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should be used, if available, to reduce radiation exposure. Contrast agents should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Medical therapy should be selected with careful consideration of adverse fetal effects. Herein, we present a review of the literature and discuss an approach to the evaluation and management of headache in pregnancy [West J Emerg Med. 2015;16(2):291–301.

Headache in Pregnancy: An Approach to Emergency Department Evaluation and Management

Headache is a common presenting complaint in the emergency department. The differential diagnosis is broad and includes benign primary causes as well as ominous secondary causes. The diagnosis and management of headache in the pregnant patient presents several challenges. There are important unique considerations regarding the differential diagnosis, imaging options, and medical management. Physiologic changes induced by pregnancy increase the risk of cerebral venous thrombosis, dissection, and pituitary apoplexy. Preeclampsia, a serious condition unique to pregnancy, must also be considered. A high index of suspicion for carbon monoxide toxicity should be maintained. Primary headaches should be a diagnosis of exclusion. When advanced imaging is indicated, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should be used, if available, to reduce radiation exposure. Contrast agents should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Medical therapy should be selected with careful consideration of adverse fetal effects. Herein, we present a review of the literature and discuss an approach to the evaluation and management of headache in pregnancy [West J Emerg Med. 2015;16(2):291–301.

Salmonella Urinary Tract Infection Heralding Thoracic Mycotic Aneurysm: Case Report as Medical Apology

We report a case as a patient apology as a means of teaching other physicians about a unique presentation of a rare disease. Salmonella species are unusually isolated organisms in urine. In the case described, appreciation for the rarity of Salmonella species in the urine facilitated recognition of a serious disseminated Salmonella infection. Physicians should consider disseminated Salmonella infection, as was found in a patient with an aortic mycotic an eurysm, after isolation of Salmonella in urine despite an initially benign clinical presentation

Headache in Pregnancy: An Approach to Emergency Department Evaluation and Management

Headache is a common presenting complaint in the emergency department. The differential diagnosis is broad and includes benign primary causes as well as ominous secondary causes. The diagnosis and management of headache in the pregnant patient presents several challenges. There are important unique considerations regarding the differential diagnosis, imaging options, and medical management. Physiologic changes induced by pregnancy increase the risk of cerebral venous thrombosis, dissection, and pituitary apoplexy. Preeclampsia, a serious condition unique to pregnancy, must also be considered. A high index of suspicion for carbon monoxide toxicity should be maintained. Primary headaches should be a diagnosis of exclusion. When advanced imaging is indicated, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should be used, if available, to reduce radiation exposure. Contrast agents should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Medical therapy should be selected with careful consideration of adverse fetal effects. Herein, we present a review of the literature and discuss an approach to the evaluation and management of headache in pregnancy [West J Emerg Med. 2015;16(2):291–301.

Anaphylaxis-related Malpractice Lawsuits

Introduction: Anaphylaxis continues to cause significant morbidity and mortality. Healthcare providers struggle to promptly recognize and appropriately treat anaphylaxis patients. The goal of this study was to characterize anaphylaxis-related malpractice lawsuits.Methods: We collected jury verdicts, settlements, and court opinions regarding alleged medical malpractice involving anaphylaxis from May 2011 through May 2015 from an online legal database (Thomson Reuters Westlaw). Data were abstracted onto a standardized data form.Results: We identified 30 anaphylaxis-related malpractice lawsuits. In 80% of cases, the trigger was iatrogenic (40% intravenous [IV] contrast, 33% medications, 7% latex). Sixteen (53%) cases resulted in death, 7 (23%) in permanent cardiac and/or neurologic damage, and 7 (23%) in less severe outcomes. Fourteen (47%) of the lawsuits were related to exposure to a known trigger. Delayed recognition or treatment was cited in 12 (40%) cases and inappropriate IV epinephrine dosing was reported in 5 (17%) cases. Defendants were most commonly physicians (n=15, 50%) and nurses (n=5, 17%). The most common physician specialties named were radiology and primary care (n=3, 10% each), followed by emergency medicine, anesthesiology, and cardiology (n=2, 7% each). Among the 30 cases, 14 (47%) favored the defendant, 8 (37%) resulted in findings of negligence, 3 (10%) cases settled, and 5 (17%) had an unknown legal outcome.Conclusion: Additional anaphylaxis education, provision of epinephrine autoinjectors or other alternatives to reduce dosing errors, and stronger safeguards to prevent administration of known allergens would all likely reduce anaphylaxis-related patient morbidity and mortality and providers’ legal vulnerability to anaphylaxis-related lawsuits

Anaphylaxis-related Malpractice Lawsuits

Introduction: Anaphylaxis continues to cause significant morbidity and mortality. Healthcare providers struggle to promptly recognize and appropriately treat anaphylaxis patients. The goal of this study was to characterize anaphylaxis-related malpractice lawsuits.Methods: We collected jury verdicts, settlements, and court opinions regarding alleged medical malpractice involving anaphylaxis from May 2011 through May 2015 from an online legal database (Thomson Reuters Westlaw). Data were abstracted onto a standardized data form.Results: We identified 30 anaphylaxis-related malpractice lawsuits. In 80% of cases, the trigger was iatrogenic (40% intravenous [IV] contrast, 33% medications, 7% latex). Sixteen (53%) cases resulted in death, 7 (23%) in permanent cardiac and/or neurologic damage, and 7 (23%) in less severe outcomes. Fourteen (47%) of the lawsuits were related to exposure to a known trigger. Delayed recognition or treatment was cited in 12 (40%) cases and inappropriate IV epinephrine dosing was reported in 5 (17%) cases. Defendants were most commonly physicians (n=15, 50%) and nurses (n=5, 17%). The most common physician specialties named were radiology and primary care (n=3, 10% each), followed by emergency medicine, anesthesiology, and cardiology (n=2, 7% each). Among the 30 cases, 14 (47%) favored the defendant, 8 (37%) resulted in findings of negligence, 3 (10%) cases settled, and 5 (17%) had an unknown legal outcome.Conclusion: Additional anaphylaxis education, provision of epinephrine autoinjectors or other alternatives to reduce dosing errors, and stronger safeguards to prevent administration of known allergens would all likely reduce anaphylaxis-related patient morbidity and mortality and providers’ legal vulnerability to anaphylaxis-related lawsuits

Hours and Miles: Patient and Health System Implications of Transfer for Psychiatric Bed Capacity

Introduction: An increasing number of behavioral health (BH) patients are presenting to the emergency department (ED) while BH resources continue to decline. This situation may lead to more external transfers to find care.Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients presenting to a tertiary care academic ED from February 1, 2013, through January 31, 2014. Patients were identified through electronic health record documentation of psychiatric consultation during ED evaluation. Electronic health records were reviewed for demographic characteristics, diagnoses, payer source, ED length of stay, ED disposition, arrival method, and distance traveled to an external facility for inpatient admission. Univariable and multivariable associations with transfer to an external facility in comparison with patients admitted internally were evaluated with logistic regression models and summarized with odds ratios (ORs). Results: We identified 2,585 BH visits, of which 1,083 (41.9%) resulted in discharge. A total of 1,502 patient visits required inpatient psychiatric admission, and of these cases, 177 patients (11.8%; 95% CI, 10.2%-13.5%) required transfer to an external facility. The median ED length of stay for transferred patients was 13.9 hours (interquartile range [IQR], 9.3-20.2 hours; range, 3.0-243.0 hours). The median distance for transport was 83 miles (IQR, 42-111 miles; range, 42-237 miles). In multivariable analysis, patients with suicidal or homicidal ideation had increased risk of transfer (odds ratio [OR] [95% CI], 1.93 [1.22-3.06]; P=.005). Children younger than 18 years (OR [95% CI], 2.34 [1.60-3.40]; P<.001) and adults older than 65 years (OR [95% CI], 3.46 [1.93-6.19]; P<.001) were more likely to require transfer and travel farther to access care.Conclusions: Patients requiring external transfer for inpatient psychiatric care were found to have prolonged ED lengths of stay. Patients with suicidal and homicidal ideation as well as children and adults older than 65 years are more likely to require transfer