19 research outputs found

    Utility of Chest Radiography in Emergency Department Patients Presenting with Syncope

    Get PDF
    Introduction: Syncope has myriad etiologies, ranging from benign to immediately life threatening. This frequently leads to over testing. Chest radiographs (CXR) are among these commonly performed tests despite their uncertain diagnostic yield. The objective is to study the distribution of normal and abnormal chest radiographs in patients presenting with syncope, stratified by those who did or did not have an adverse event at 30 days. Methods: We performed a post-hoc analysis of a prospective cohort of consecutive patients presenting to an urban tertiary care academic medical center with a chief complaint of syncope from 2003–2006. The frequency and findings for each CXR were reviewed, as well as emergency department and hospital discharge diagnoses, and 30-day outcome. Results: There were 575 total subjects, 39.7% were male, and the mean age was 57.2 (SD 24.6). Of the 575 subjects, 403 (70.1%) had CXRs performed, and 116 (20.2%) had an adverse event after their syncope. Of the 116 people who had an adverse event, 15 (12.9%) had a positive CXR, 81 (69.8%) had a normal CXR, and 20 (17.2%) did not have a CXR as part of the initial evaluation. Among the 459 people who did not have an adverse event, 3 (0.7%) had a positive CXR, 304 (66.2%) had a normal CXR, and 152 (33.1%) did not have a CXR performed. Fifteen of the 18 patients (83.4%) with an abnormal CXR had an adverse event. Eighty-one of the 385 patients (21.0%) with a normal CXR had an adverse event. Among those who had a CXR performed, an abnormal CXR was associated with increased odds of adverse event (OR: 18.77 (95% CI= [5.3–66.4])). Conclusion: Syncope patients with abnormal CXRs are likely to experience an adverse event, though the majority of CXRs performed in the work up of syncope are normal

    Emergency department point-of-care ultrasonography improves time to pericardiocentesis for clinically significant effusions

    Get PDF
    Objective Our objective was to determine the utility of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) to identify and guide treatment of tamponade or clinically significant pericardial effusions in the emergency department (ED). Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of non-trauma patients who were diagnosed with large pericardial effusions or tamponade by the ED physician using POCUS. The control group was composed of those patients later diagnosed on the medical wards or incidentally in the ED by other means such as a computed tomography. The following data were abstracted from the patient’s file: demographics, medical background, electrocardiogram results, chest radiograph readings, echocardiogram results, and patient outcomes. Results There were 18 patients in the POCUS arm and 55 in the control group. The POCUS arm had a decreased time to pericardiocentesis (11.3 vs. 70.2 hours, P=0.055) as well as a shorter length of stay (5.1 vs. 7.0 days, P=0.222). A decreased volume of pericardial fluid was drained (661 vs. 826 mL, P=0.139) in the group diagnosed by POCUS. Conclusion This study suggests that POCUS may effectively identify pericardial effusions and guide appropriate treatment, leading to a decreased time to pericardiocentesis and decreased length of hospital stay. Pericardial tamponade or a large pericardial effusion should be considered in all patients presenting to the ED with clinical, radiographic, or electrocardiographic signs of cardiovascular compromise

    Physician Variability in Management of Emergency Department Patients with Chest Pain

    No full text
    Introduction: Chest pain is a common emergency department (ED) presentation accounting for 8–10 million visits per year in the United States. Physician-level factors such as risk tolerance are predictive of admission rates. The recent advent of accelerated diagnostic pathways and ED observation units may have an impact in reducing variation in admission rates on the individual physician level. Methods: We conducted a single-institution retrospective observational study of ED patients with a diagnosis of chest pain as determined by diagnostic code from our hospital administrative database. We included ED visits from 2012 and 2013. Patients with an elevated troponin or an electrocardiogram (ECG) demonstrating an ST elevation myocardial infarction were excluded. Patients were divided into two groups: “admission” (this included observation and inpatients) and “discharged.” We stratified physicians by age, gender, residency location, and years since medical school. We controlled for patient- and hospital-related factors including age, gender, race, insurance status, daily ED volume, and lab values. Results: Of 4,577 patients with documented dispositions, 3,252 (70.9%) were either admitted to the hospital or into observation (in an ED observation unit or in the hospital), while 1,333 (29.1%) were discharged. Median number of patients per physician was 132 (interquartile range 89–172). Average admission rate was 73.7±9.5% ranging from 54% to 96%. Of the 3,252 admissions, 2,638 (81.1%) were to observation. There was significant variation in the admission rate at the individual physician level with adjusted odds ratio ranging from 0.42 to 5.8 as compared to the average admission. Among physicians’ characteristics, years elapsed since finishing medical school demonstrated a trend towards association with a higher admission probability. Conclusion: There is substantial variation among physicians in the management of patients presenting with chest pain, with physician experience playing a role

    Use of Physician Concerns and Patient Complaints as Quality Assurance Markers in Emergency Medicine

    No full text
    Introduction: The value of using patient- and physician-identified quality assurance (QA) issues in emergency medicine remains poorly characterized as a marker for emergency department (ED) QA. The objective of this study was to determine whether evaluation of patient and physician concerns is useful for identifying medical errors resulting in either an adverse event or a near-miss event. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, observational cohort study of consecutive patients presenting between January 2008 and December 2014 to an urban, tertiary care academic medical center ED with an electronic error reporting system that allows physicians to identify QA issues for review. In our system, both patient and physician concerns are reviewed by physician evaluators not involved with the patients’ care to determine if a QA issue exists. If a potential QA issue is present, it is referred to a 20-member QA committee of emergency physicians and nurses who make a final determination as to whether or not an error or adverse event occurred. Results: We identified 570 concerns within a database of 383,419 ED presentations, of which 33 were patient-generated and 537 were physician-generated. Out of the 570 reports, a preventable adverse event was detected in 3.0% of cases (95% CI = [1.52–4.28]). Further analysis revealed that 9.1% (95% CI = [2–24]) of patient complaints correlated to preventable errors leading to an adverse event. In contrast, 2.6% (95% CI = [2–4]) of QA concerns reported by a physician alone were found to be due to preventable medical errors leading to an adverse event (p=0.069). Near-miss events (errors without adverse outcome) trended towards more accurate reporting by physicians, with medical error found in 12.1% of reported cases (95% CI = [10–15]) versus 9.1% of those reported by patients (95% CI = [2–24] p=0.079). Adverse events in general that were not deemed to be due to preventable medical error were found in 12.1% of patient complaints (95% CI = [3–28]) and in 5.8% of physician QA concerns (95% CI = [4–8]). Conclusion: Screening and systemized evaluation of ED patient and physician complaints may be an underutilized QA tool. Patient complaints demonstrated a trend to identify medical errors that result in preventable adverse events, while physician QA concerns may be more likely to uncover a near miss

    Using the Boston Syncope Observation Management Pathway to Reduce Hospital Admission and Adverse Outcomes

    No full text
    Introduction: In an age of increasing scrutiny of each hospital admission, emergency department (ED) observation has been identified as a low-cost alternative. Prior studies have shown admission rates for syncope in the United States to be as high as 70%. However, the safety and utility of substituting ED observation unit (EDOU) syncope management has not been well studied. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of EDOU for the management of patients presenting to the ED with syncope and its efficacy in reducing hospital admissions. Methods: This was a prospective before-and-after cohort study of consecutive patients presenting with syncope who were seen in an urban ED and were either admitted to the hospital, discharged, or placed in the EDOU. We first performed an observation study of syncope management and then implemented an ED observation-based management pathway. We identified critical interventions and 30-day outcomes. We compared proportions of admissions and adverse events rates with a chi-squared or Fisher’s exact test. Results: In the “before” phase, 570 patients were enrolled, with 334 (59%) admitted and 27 (5%) placed in the EDOU; 3% of patients discharged from the ED had critical interventions within 30 days and 10% returned. After the management pathway was introduced, 489 patients were enrolled; 34% (p<0.001) of pathway patients were admitted while 20% were placed in the EDOU; 3% (p=0.99) of discharged patients had critical interventions at 30 days and 3% returned (p=0.001). Conclusion: A focused syncope management pathway effectively reduces hospital admissions and adverse events following discharge and returns to the ED
    corecore