Not all suffering is pain: sources of patients' suffering in the emergency department call for improvements in communication from practitioners

Background Provision of prompt, effective analgesia is rightly considered as a standard of care in the emergency department (ED). However, much suffering is not ‘painful’ and may be under-recognised. We sought to describe the burden of suffering in the ED and explore how this may be best addressed from a patient centred perspective. Methods In a prospective cohort study, we included undifferentiated patients presenting to the ED. We undertook two face to face questionnaires with the first immediately following triage. We asked patients: (a) if they were ‘suffering’; (b) how they were suffering; and (c) what they hoped would be done to ease this. Prior to leaving the ED, we asked patients what had been done to ease their suffering. Data were analysed thematically. Results Of 125 patients included, 77 (61.6%) reported suffering on direct questioning and 92 (73.6%) listed at least one way in which they were suffering. 90 (72.0%) patients had a pain score >0/10 but only 37 (29.6%) reported that pain was causing suffering. Patients reported suffering from both physical symptoms (especially pain, nausea, vomiting and dizziness) and emotional distress (notably anxiety). Treatment (to ease physical and emotional symptoms), information (particularly diagnosis, reassurance and explanation), care (notably friendly staff) and closure (being seen, resolving the problem and going home) were the key themes identified as important for relief of suffering. Conclusions In seeking to ease suffering in the ED, clinicians must focus not only on providing analgesia but on treating Emotional distress, Physical symptoms, providing Information, Care and Closure (EPICC)

Feasibility of the Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision rule to safely reduce unnecessary hospital admissions: a pilot randomised controlled trial

Background Observational studies suggest that the Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision rule can effectively rule out' and rule in' acute coronary syndromes (ACS) following a single blood test. In a pilot randomised controlled trial, we aimed to determine whether a large trial is feasible. Methods Patients presenting to two EDs with suspected cardiac chest pain were randomised to receive care guided by the MACS decision rule (intervention group) or standard care (controls). The primary efficacy outcome was a successful discharge from the ED, defined as a decision to discharge within 4 hours of arrival providing that the patient did not have a missed acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or develop a major adverse cardiac event (MACE: death, AMI or coronary revascularisation) within 30 days. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment and attrition rates. Results In total, 138 patients were included between October 2013 and October 2014, of whom 131 (95%) were randomised (66 to intervention and 65 controls). Nine (7%) patients had prevalent AMI and six (5%) had incident MACE within 30 days. All 131 patients completed 30-day follow-up and were included in the final analysis with no missing data for the primary analyses. Compared with standard care, a significantly greater proportion of patients whose care was guided by the MACS rule were successfully discharged within 4 hours (26% vs 8%, adjusted OR 5.45, 95% CI 1.73 to 17.11, p=0.004). No patients in either group who were discharged within 4 hours had a diagnosis of AMI or incident MACE within 30 days (0.0%, 95% CI 0% to 20.0% in the intervention group). Conclusions In this pilot trial, use of the MACS rule led to a significant increase in safe discharges from the ED but a larger, fully powered trial remains necessary. Our findings seem to support the feasibility of that trial. Trial registration number ISRCTN 86818215. Research Ethics Committee reference 13/NW/0081. UKCRN registration ID 14334

Accuracy of emergency medical services (EMS) telephone triage in identifying acute coronary syndrome (ACS) for patients with chest pain: a systematic literature review.

From Europe PMC via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: ppub 2021-08-01, epub 2021-08-25Publication status: PublishedFunder: University of Manchester; Grant(s): No grant or award numberObjectiveTo systematically appraise the available evidence to determine the accuracy of decision aids for emergency medical services (EMS) telephone triage of patients with chest pain suspected to be caused by acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or life-threatening conditions.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesElectronic searches were performed in Embase 1974, Medline 1946 and CINAHL 1937 databases from 3 March 2020 to 4 March 2020.Eligibility criteriaThe review included all types of original studies that included adult patients (>18 years) who called EMS with a primary complaint of chest pain and evaluated dispatch triage priority by telephone. Outcomes of interest were a final diagnosis of ACS, acute myocardial infarction or other life-threatening conditions.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors independently extracted data on study design, population, study period, outcome and all data for assessment of accuracy, including cross-tabulation of triage priority against the outcomes of interest. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 assessment tool.ResultsSearches identified 553 papers, of which 3 were eligible for inclusion. Those reports described the evaluation of three different prediction models with variation in the variables used to detect ACS. The overall results showed that dispatch triage tools have good sensitivity to detect ACS and life-threatening conditions, even though they are used to triage signs and symptoms rather than diagnosing the patients. On the other hand, prediction models were built to detect ACS and life-threatening conditions, and therefore, prediction models showed better sensitivity and negative predictive value than dispatch triage tools.ConclusionWe have identified three prediction models for telephone triage of patients with chest pain. While they have been found to have greater accuracy than standard EMS dispatch systems, prospective external validation is essential before clinical use is considered.Prospero registration numberThis systematic review was pre-registered on the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) database (reference CRD42020171184)

Troponin-only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (T-MACS) decision aid: single biomarker re-derivation and external validation in three cohorts.

BACKGROUND: The original Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes model (MACS) 'rules in' and 'rules out' acute coronary syndromes (ACS) using high sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and heart-type fatty acid binding protein (H-FABP) measured at admission. The latter is not always available. We aimed to refine and validate MACS as Troponin-only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (T-MACS), cutting down the biomarkers to just hs-cTnT. METHODS: We present secondary analyses from four prospective diagnostic cohort studies including patients presenting to the ED with suspected ACS. Data were collected and hs-cTnT measured on arrival. The primary outcome was ACS, defined as prevalent acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or incident death, AMI or coronary revascularisation within 30 days. T-MACS was built in one cohort (derivation set) and validated in three external cohorts (validation set). RESULTS: At the 'rule out' threshold, in the derivation set (n=703), T-MACS had 99.3% (95% CI 97.3% to 99.9%) negative predictive value (NPV) and 98.7% (95.3%-99.8%) sensitivity for ACS, 'ruling out' 37.7% patients (specificity 47.6%, positive predictive value (PPV) 34.0%). In the validation set (n=1459), T-MACS had 99.3% (98.3%-99.8%) NPV and 98.1% (95.2%-99.5%) sensitivity, 'ruling out' 40.4% (n=590) patients (specificity 47.0%, PPV 23.9%). T-MACS would 'rule in' 10.1% and 4.7% patients in the respective sets, of which 100.0% and 91.3% had ACS. C-statistics for the original and refined rules were similar (T-MACS 0.91 vs MACS 0.90 on validation). CONCLUSIONS: T-MACS could 'rule out' ACS in 40% of patients, while 'ruling in' 5% at highest risk using a single hs-cTnT measurement on arrival. As a clinical decision aid, T-MACS could therefore help to conserve healthcare resources

Are you a SCEPTIC? SoCial mEdia Precision and uTility in Conferences

We analysed Twitter feeds at an emergency medicine scientific conference to determine the (1) accuracy of disseminated educational messages and the (2) use in providing rapid feedback to speakers. Most speakers were happy for key messages to be tweeted, and the majority of tweets (34/37) represented these accurately. It is important that speakers and conference organisers consider Twitter use and its potential benefits and disadvantages

Prognostic Utility of a Modified HEART Score When Different Troponin Cut-points Are Used

BACKGROUND: Although the recommended cut-point for cardiac troponin (cTn) is the 99th percentile, many institutions use cut-points that are multiples higher than the 99th percentile for diagnosing acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Prior studies have shown that patients with a HEART score (HS) ≤ 3 and normal serial cTn values (modified HS) are at low risk for adverse events. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic utility of the HS when various cTn cut-points are used. METHODS: This was a sub-study of TRAPID-AMI, a multicenter, international trial evaluating a rapid rule-out AMI study using high sensitivity cTnT (hs-cTnT). 1,282 patients were evaluated for AMI from 12 centers in Europe, United States of America, and Australia from 2011-2013. Blood samples of hs-cTnT were collected at presentation and 2 hours, and each patient had a HS calculated. The US Food and Drug Administration approved 99th percentile for hs-cTnT (19 ng/L) was used. RESULTS: There were 213 (17%) AMIs. Within 30 days, there were an additional 2 AMIs and 8 deaths. The adverse event rates at 30 days (death/AMI) for a HS ≤ 3 and non-elevated hs-cTnT over 2 hours using increasing hs-cTnT cut-points ranged from 0.6% to 5.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Using the recommended 99th percentile cut-point for hs-cTnT, the combination of a HS ≤ 3 with non-elevated hs-cTnT values over 2 hours identifies a low-risk cohort who can be considered for discharge from the emergency department without further testing. The prognostic utility of this strategy is greatly lessened as higher hs-cTnT cut-points are used

An exploration of patients’ experiences of participation in a randomised controlled trial of the Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision rule

Background As an important part of a pilot study to determine the feasibility of a large randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing use of the Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision rule to standard care, we aimed to explore patient attitudes and potential barriers to participation in a trial of this nature. Methods We conducted a qualitative study nested within a pilot RCT comparing use of the MACS rule (which could enable some patients with chest pain to be discharged earlier) to standard care. Semi-structured interviews with consenting participants were conducted with reference to a bespoke topic guide. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the Framework method with an inductive approach. Results The ten interviewees expressed that participation in the trial was generally acceptable. All but one recommended participation to others. Participants who were in pain or anxious at the time of arrival reported that the initial invitation to participate in the trial was sometimes made too early. The approach was welcome providing they had been given time to settle. Interviewees welcomed the opportunity that trial participation offered for them to play a more active role in their healthcare and to reduce unnecessary waiting time. Participants appeared to like that participation in the trial might mean they could return home sooner and welcomed the provision of follow-up. Although several participants described being generally sceptical of medical research, they were amenable to participation in this trial. This appears to be because they agreed with the need for research in this field and perceived the intervention as non-invasive. Conclusions Patients were positive about their participation in this RCT comparing the MACS rule to standard care. A number of areas for improving trial design were identified and should be considered in the planning of future large trial