5 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Evaluating Disparities Affecting Time from Emergency Department Door to Electrocardiogram in Chest Pain Patients
Introduction: For patients presenting to an emergency department with a chief complaint of chest pain, current American Heart Association guidelines recommend that time from emergency department arrival to completion of electrocardiogram be 10 minutes or less. The aim of this study is to evaluate if differences still exist amongst a diverse patient population presenting to a busy urban emergency department with a chief complaint of chest pain. Methods: This retrospective study looked at 3,419 patients who presented to the Emergency Department with any complaint of chest pain during the medical screening examination. Arrival time and time of first electrocardiogram along with age, gender, race, ethnicity and primary language were extracted from electronic health records. Results: For all patients, the mean time to electrocardiogram was 12.5 minutes (95% CI: 12.1-12.7) and 49.9% of all patients received an electrocardiogram within 10 minutes of arrival. Mean time for men was 11.6 minutes and for women 13.3 minutes (P<0.0001); in addition 54% of men and 44.4% of women had electrocardiogram done within 10 minutes of arrival (P<0.0001). No differences were found with regards to primary language, race or ethnicity of patients. Mean time to electrocardiogram for patients less than 40 years old was 14.6 minutes, which was significantly longer than patients equal or older than 40 years, who’s mean time was 11.9 minutes (p<0.0001). The effect of age was observed across gender, race, ethnicity and primary language spoken by the patients. Conclusions: Patient presenting to the emergency department with chest pain are subject to several biases that potentially create health disparities. In this study we show that younger patients and women had a delay in time to electrocardiogram showing biases are still an issue
Outcomes of Patients Who Have Do Not Resuscitate Status prior to Being Admitted to an Intensive Care Unit
Admission of patients who have do not resuscitate (DNR) status to an intensive care unit (ICU) is potentially a misallocation of limited resources to patients who may neither need nor want intensive care. Yet, patients who have DNR status are often admitted to the ICU. This is a retrospective review of patients who had a valid DNR status at the time that they were admitted to an ICU in a single hospital over an eighteen-month period. Thirty-five patients met the criteria for inclusion in the study. The primary reasons for admission to the ICU were respiratory distress (54.2%) and sepsis (45.7%). Sixteen (45.7%) of the patients died, compared to a 5.4% mortality rate for all patients admitted to our ICU during this period (p<0.001). APACHE II score was a significant predictor of mortality (18.5 ± 1.3 alive and 23.4 ± 1.4 dead; p=0.038). Of the 19 patients discharged alive, 9 were discharged home, 5 to hospice, and 4 to a post-acute care facility. Conclusions. Patients who have DNR status and are admitted to the ICU have a higher mortality than other ICU patients. Those who survive have a high likelihood of being discharged to hospice or a post-acute care facility. The value of intensive intervention for these patients is not supported by these results. Only a minority of patients were seen by palliative care and chaplain teams, services which the literature supports as valuable for DNR patients. Our study supports the need for less expensive and less intensive but more appropriate resources for patients and families who have chosen DNR status