Reliability of the revised Swiss Emergency Triage Scale: a computer simulation study.

The Swiss Emergency Triage Scale (SETS) is a four-level emergency scale that previously showed moderate reliability and high rates of undertriage due to a lack of standardization. It was revised to better standardize the measurement and interpretation of vital signs during the triage process. The aim of this study was to explore the inter-rater and test-retest reliability, and the rate of correct triage of the revised SETS. Thirty clinical scenarios were evaluated twice at a 3-month interval using an interactive computerized triage simulator by 58 triage nurses at an urban teaching emergency department admitting 60 000 patients a year. Inter-rater and test-retest reliabilities were determined using κ statistics. Triage decisions were compared with a gold standard attributed by an expert panel. Rates of correct triage, undertriage, and overtriage were computed. A logistic regression model was used to identify the predictors of correct triage. A total of 3387 triage situations were analyzed. Inter-rater reliability showed substantial agreement [mean κ: 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.60-0.78] and test-retest almost perfect agreement (mean κ: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.84-0.88). The rate of correct triage was 84.1%, and rates of undertriage and overtriage were 7.2 and 8.7%, respectively. Vital sign measurement was an independent predictor of correct triage (odds ratios for correct triage: 1.29 for each additional vital sign measured, 95% CI: 1.20-1.39). The revised SETS incorporating standardized vital sign measurement and interpretation during the triage process resulted in high reliability and low rates of mistriage

Decision analysis and the implementation of evidence-based medicine

The evidence-based medicine movement has received enthusiastic endorsement from editors of major medical journals. Hardly anyone can disagree with the aim of helping clinicians to make judicious use of the best scientific evidence for decisions in patient care. Evidence-based medicine, however, because of its dependence on randomized trials, cannot be applied to all individuals seen in daily practice. Specifically, patients may differ in age, severity of illness, presence of comorbidity and myriad of other clinical nuances. In response to these limitations, decision analysis, a technique which allows to consider multiple health outcomes, such as the patient's preferences for different states of health, and to measure the consequences of many strategies for which randomized trials are not feasible, provides a rational means of allowing health professionals to move from finding evidence to implementing it. Such formal approach may reconcile evidence-based medicine with 'sreal life' and patient's preference. It should therefore be considered complementary to evidence-based medicin

Successful implementation of guidelines for encouraging the use of beta blockers in patients after acute myocardial infarction.

PURPOSE: To assess whether implementation of guidelines increases the prescription of drugs, particularly beta blockers, recommended for secondary prevention after acute myocardial infarction. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Prescription patterns among 355 patients discharged from a public teaching hospital after recovery from myocardial infarction were prospectively monitored in a before-after trial. The implementation strategies included educational interventions (large group meetings), placement of guidelines in patients' records, and bimonthly general reminders sent to physicians. RESULTS: Beta blockers were prescribed in 93 (38%) of 243 survivors of acute myocardial infarction before guideline implementation (12-month control period), as compared with 71 (63%) of 112 patients (P <0.001) after their implementation (6-month period). During the entire study period, the prescription of beta blockers at a neighboring public teaching hospital, used as a comparison, was unchanged. After adjusting for potential confounders, implementation of the guidelines remained significantly associated with prescription of beta blockers at discharge [odds ratio (OR) = 10; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.2 to 33; P <0.001]. Other independent predictors of prescription of beta blockers were previous coronary artery bypass grafting (OR = 8.7; 95% CI, 2.5 to 31; P = 0.001), hypertension (OR = 2.5; 95% CI, 1.4 to 4.5; P = 0.003), age per 10-year increase (OR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.99; P = 0.04), secular trend in prescription patterns expressed in months (OR = 0.9; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.0; P = 0.02), a left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 40% (OR = 0.2; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.4; P <0.001), the presence of atrioventricular block (OR = 0.1; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.7; P = 0.02), and concomitant prescription of digoxin (OR = 0.2; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.8; P = 0.02) or calcium antagonists (OR = 0.06; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.3; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: When appropriately developed and implemented by local experts, literature-based guidelines may be effective in modifying use of recommended drugs for secondary prevention of coronary artery disease, such as prescription of beta blockers

Successful implementation of guidelines for encouraging the use of beta blockers in patients after acute myocardial infarction.

PURPOSE: To assess whether implementation of guidelines increases the prescription of drugs, particularly beta blockers, recommended for secondary prevention after acute myocardial infarction. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Prescription patterns among 355 patients discharged from a public teaching hospital after recovery from myocardial infarction were prospectively monitored in a before-after trial. The implementation strategies included educational interventions (large group meetings), placement of guidelines in patients' records, and bimonthly general reminders sent to physicians. RESULTS: Beta blockers were prescribed in 93 (38%) of 243 survivors of acute myocardial infarction before guideline implementation (12-month control period), as compared with 71 (63%) of 112 patients (P <0.001) after their implementation (6-month period). During the entire study period, the prescription of beta blockers at a neighboring public teaching hospital, used as a comparison, was unchanged. After adjusting for potential confounders, implementation of the guidelines remained significantly associated with prescription of beta blockers at discharge [odds ratio (OR) = 10; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.2 to 33; P <0.001]. Other independent predictors of prescription of beta blockers were previous coronary artery bypass grafting (OR = 8.7; 95% CI, 2.5 to 31; P = 0.001), hypertension (OR = 2.5; 95% CI, 1.4 to 4.5; P = 0.003), age per 10-year increase (OR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.99; P = 0.04), secular trend in prescription patterns expressed in months (OR = 0.9; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.0; P = 0.02), a left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 40% (OR = 0.2; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.4; P <0.001), the presence of atrioventricular block (OR = 0.1; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.7; P = 0.02), and concomitant prescription of digoxin (OR = 0.2; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.8; P = 0.02) or calcium antagonists (OR = 0.06; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.3; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: When appropriately developed and implemented by local experts, literature-based guidelines may be effective in modifying use of recommended drugs for secondary prevention of coronary artery disease, such as prescription of beta blockers

Stepwise evaluation of syncope: a prospective population-based controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of syncope remains often unstructured. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of a standardized protocol designed to improve the diagnosis of syncope. METHODS: Consecutive patients with syncope presenting to the emergency departments of two primary and tertiary care hospitals over a period of 18 months underwent a two-phase evaluation including: 1) noninvasive assessment (phase I); and 2) specialized tests (phase II), if syncope remained unexplained after phase I. During phase II, the evaluation strategy was alternately left to physicians in charge of patients (control), or guided by a standardized protocol relying on cardiac status and frequency of events (intervention). The primary outcomes were the diagnostic yield of each phase, and the impact of the intervention (phase II) measured by multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Among 1725 patients with syncope, 1579 (92%) entered phase I which permitted to establish a diagnosis in 1061 (67%) of them, including mainly reflex causes and orthostatic hypotension. Five-hundred-eighteen patients (33%) were considered as having unexplained syncope and 363 (70%) entered phase II. A cause for syncope was found in 67 (38%) of 174 patients during intervention periods, compared to 18 (9%) of 189 during control (p<0.001). Compared to control periods, intervention permitted diagnosing more cardiac (8%, vs 3%, p=0.04) and reflex syncope (25% vs 6%, p<0.001), and increased the odds of identifying a cause for syncope by a factor of 4.5 (95% CI: 2.6-8.7, p<0.001). Overall, adding the diagnostic yield obtained during phase I and phase II (intervention periods) permitted establishing the cause of syncope in 76% of patients. CONCLUSION: Application of a standardized diagnostic protocol in patients with syncope improved the likelihood of identifying a cause for this symptom. Future trials should assess the efficacy of diagnosis-specific therapy

Syncope clinical management in the emergency department: a consensus from the first international workshop on syncope risk stratification in the emergency department

Paroxysmal Cerebral Disorder