Barriers and Disparities in Emergency Medical Services 911 Calls for Stroke Symptoms in the United States Adult Population: 2009 BRFSS Survey

Introduction: This study examines barriers and disparities in the intentions of American citizens, when dealing with stroke symptoms, to call 911. This study hypothesizes that low socioeconomic populations are less likely to call 911 in response to stroke recognition. Methods: The study is a cross-sectional design analyzing data from the Centers for Disease Control’s 2009 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, collected through a telephone-based survey from 18 states and the District of Columbia. The study identified the 5 most evident stroke-warning symptoms based on those given by the American Stroke Association. We conducted appropriate weighting procedures to account for the complex survey design. Results: A total of 131,988 respondents answered the following question: “If you thought someone was having a heart attack or a stroke, what is the first thing you would do?” A majority of those who said they would call 911 were insured (85.1%), had good health (84.1%), had no stroke history (97.3%), had a primary care physician (PCP) (81.4%), and had no burden of medical costs (84.9%). Those less likely to call 911 were found in the following groups: 65 years or older, men, other race, unmarried, less than or equal to high school degree, less than $25,000 family income, uninsured, no PCP, burden of medical costs, fair/poor health, previous history of strokes, or interaction between burden of medical costs and less than$50,000 family income (p\u3c0.0001 by X2 tests). The only factors significantly associated with “would call 911” were age, sex, race/ethnicity, marital status, and previous history of strokes. Conclusion: Barriers and disparities exist among subpopulations of different socioeconomic statuses. This study suggests that some potential stroke victims could have limited access to EMS services. Greater effort targeting certain populations is needed to motivate citizens to call 911. [West J Emerg Med. 2014;15(2):251–259]

Quality Improvement Practices in Academic Emergency Medicine: Perspectives from the Chairs

Objective: To assess academic emergency medicine (EM) chairs’ perceptions of quality improvement (QI) training programs.Methods: A voluntary anonymous 20 item survey was distributed to a sample of academic chairs of EM through the Association of Academic Chairs of Emergency Medicine. Data was collected to assess the percentage of academic emergency physicians who had received QI training, the type of training they received, their perception of the impact of this training on behavior, practice and outcomes, and any perceived barriers to implementing QI programs in the emergency department.Results: The response rate to the survey was 69% (N = 59). 59.3% of respondents report that their hospital has a formal QI program for physicians. Chairs received training in a variety of QI programs. The type of QI program used by respondents was perceived as having no impact on goals achieved by QI (χ2 = 12.382; p = 0.260), but there was a statistically significant (χ2 = 14.383; p = 0.006) relationship between whether or not goals were achieved and academic EM chairs’ perceptions about return on investment for QI training. Only 22% of chairs responded that they have already made changes as a result of the QI training. 78.8% of EM chairs responded that quality programs could have a significant positive impact on their practice and the healthcare industry. Chairs perceived that QI programs had the most potential value in the areas of understanding and reducing medical errors and improving patient flow and throughput. Other areas of potential value of QI include improving specific clinical indicators and standardizing physician care.Conclusion: Academic EM chairs perceived that QI programs were an effective way to drive needed improvements. The results suggest that there is a high level of interest in QI but a low level of adoption of training and implementation.[West J Emerg Med. 2010; 11(5):479-485.

Barriers and Disparities in Emergency Medical Services 911 Calls for Stroke Symptoms in the United States Adult Population: 2009 BRFSS Survey

Introduction: This study examines barriers and disparities in the intentions of American citizens, when dealing with stroke symptoms, to call 911. This study hypothesizes that low socioeconomic populations are less likely to call 911 in response to stroke recognition. Methods: The study is a cross-sectional design analyzing data from the Centers for Disease Control’s 2009 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, collected through a telephone-based survey from 18 states and the District of Columbia. The study identified the 5 most evident stroke-warning symptoms based on those given by the American Stroke Association. We conducted appropriate weighting procedures to account for the complex survey design. Results: A total of 131,988 respondents answered the following question: “If you thought someone was having a heart attack or a stroke, what is the first thing you would do?” A majority of those who said they would call 911 were insured (85.1%), had good health (84.1%), had no stroke history (97.3%), had a primary care physician (PCP) (81.4%), and had no burden of medical costs (84.9%). Those less likely to call 911 were found in the following groups: 65 years or older, men, other race, unmarried, less than or equal to high school degree, less than $25,000 family income, uninsured, no PCP, burden of medical costs, fair/poor health, previous history of strokes, or interaction between burden of medical costs and less than$50,000 family income (p<0.0001 by X2 tests). The only factors significantly associated with “would call 911” were age, sex, race/ethnicity, marital status, and previous history of strokes. Conclusion: Barriers and disparities exist among subpopulations of different socioeconomic statuses. This study suggests that some potential stroke victims could have limited access to EMS services. Greater effort targeting certain populations is needed to motivate citizens to call 911. [West J Emerg Med. 2014;15(2):251–259]

Reassessing After-Hour Arrival Patterns and Outcomes in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Introduction: Differences in after-hours capability or performance of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) centers has the potential to impact outcomes of patients presenting outside of regular hours.Methods: Using a prospective observational study, we analyzed all 1,247 non-transfer STEMI patients treated in 15 percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) facilities in Dallas, Texas, during a 24-month period (2010-2012). Controlling for confounding factors through a variety of statistical techniques, we explored differences in door-to-balloon (D2B) and in-hospital mortality for those presenting on weekends vs. weekdays and business vs. after hours.Results: Patients who arrived at the hospital on weekends had larger D2B times compared to weekdays (75 vs. 65 minutes; KW=48.9; p<0.001). Patients who arrived after-hours had median D2B times >16 minutes longer than those who arrived during business hours and a higher likelihood of mortality (OR 2.23, CI [1.15-4.32], p<0.05).Conclusion: Weekends and after-hour PCI coverage is still associated with adverse D2B outcomes and in-hospital mortality, even in major urban settings. Disparities remain in after-hour STEMI treatment. [West J Emerg Med. 2015;16(3):388–394.