Where is the evidence for emergency planning: a scoping review

Background Recent terrorist attacks and natural disasters have led to an increased awareness of the importance of emergency planning. However, the extent to which emergency planners can access or use evidence remains unclear. The aim of this study was to identify, analyse and assess the location, source and quality of emergency planning publications in the academic and UK grey literature. Methods We conducted a scoping review, using as data sources for academic literature Embase, Medline, Medline in Process, Psychinfo, Biosis, Science Citation Index, Cinahl, Cochrane library and Clinicaltrials.gov. For grey literature identification we used databases at the Health Protection Agency, NHS Evidence, British Association of Immediate Care Schemes, Emergency Planning College and the Health and Safety Executive, and the websites of UK Department of Health Emergency Planning Division and UK Resilience. Aggregative synthesis was used to analyse papers and documents against a framework based on a modified FEMA Emergency Planning cycle. Results Of 2736 titles identified from the academic literature, 1603 were relevant. 45% were from North America, 27% were commentaries or editorials and 22% were event reports. Of 192 documents from the grey literature, 97 were relevant. 76% of these were event reports. The majority of documents addressed emergency planning and response. Very few documents related to hazard analysis, mitigation or capability assessment. Conclusions Although a large body of literature exists, its validity and generalisability is unclear There is little evidence that this potential evidence base has been exploited through synthesis to inform policy and practice. The type and structure of evidence that would be of most value of emergency planners and policymakers has yet to be identified

Development and validation of a score to identify in the Emergency Department patients who may benefit from a time-critical intervention: A cohort study

Background: Risk stratification methods developed on the basis of predicting illness severity are often used to prioritise patients on the basis of urgency. Illness severity and urgency may not be interchangeable. Severe illness places patients at risk of adverse outcome, but treatment is only urgent if adverse outcome can be prevented by time-sensitive treatment. We aimed to develop a score to identify patients in need of urgent treatment, on the basis of potential to benefit from time-sensitive intervention, and to compare this with a severity score identifying patients at high risk of death. Methods: A sequential cohort of adults presenting to one Emergency Department by ambulance and admitted to hospital was prospectively collected (2437 derivation, 2322 validation). Data on outcomes representing potential to benefit was collected retrospectively on a random subset (398 derivation, 227 validation). Logistic regression identified variables predictive of death and potential to benefit from urgent treatment. Results: Death was predicted using age, respiratory rate, diastolic blood pressure, oxygen saturations, temperature, GCS and respiratory disease (AUROC 0.84 (95% CI 0.8-0.89) derivation and 0.74 (0.69-0.81) validation), while potential to benefit was predicted by pulse, systolic blood pressure and GCS (AUROC 0.74 (0.67-0.80) derivation and 0.71 (0.59-0.82) validation). Conclusions: A score developed to predict the need for urgent treatment has a different composition to a score developed to predict illness severity, suggesting that triage methods based on predicting severity could lead to inappropriate prioritisation on the intended basis of urgency

Effectiveness of EDACS Versus ADAPT Accelerated Diagnostic Pathways for Chest Pain: A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial Embedded Within Practice

Study objective A 2-hour accelerated diagnostic pathway based on the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction score, ECG, and troponin measures (ADAPT-ADP) increased early discharge of patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction presenting to the emergency department compared with standard care (from 11% to 19.3%). Observational studies suggest that an accelerated diagnostic pathway using the Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Score (EDACS-ADP) may further increase this proportion. This trial tests for the existence and size of any beneficial effect of using the EDACS-ADP in routine clinical care. Methods This was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of adults with suspected acute myocardial infarction, comparing the ADAPT-ADP and the EDACS-ADP. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients discharged to outpatient care within 6 hours of attendance, without subsequent major adverse cardiac event within 30 days. Results Five hundred fifty-eight patients were recruited, 279 in each arm. Sixty-six patients (11.8%) had a major adverse cardiac event within 30 days (ADAPT-ADP 29; EDACS-ADP 37); 11.1% more patients (95% confidence interval 2.8% to 19.4%) were identified as low risk in EDACS-ADP (41.6%) than in ADAPT-ADP (30.5%). No low-risk patients had a major adverse cardiac event within 30 days (0.0% [0.0% to 1.9%]). There was no difference in the primary outcome of proportion discharged within 6 hours (EDACS-ADP 32.3%; ADAPT-ADP 34.4%; difference −2.1% [−10.3% to 6.0%], P=.65). Conclusion There was no difference in the proportion of patients discharged early despite more patients being classified as low risk by the EDACS-ADP than the ADAPT-ADP. Both accelerated diagnostic pathways are effective strategies for chest pain assessment and resulted in an increased rate of early discharges compared with previously reported rates

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography for deep vein thrombosis

Background Ultrasound (US) has largely replaced contrast venography as the definitive diagnostic test for deep vein thrombosis (DVT). We aimed to derive a definitive estimate of the diagnostic accuracy of US for clinically suspected DVT and identify study-level factors that might predict accuracy. Methods We undertook a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of diagnostic cohort studies that compared US to contrast venography in patients with suspected DVT. We searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Database of Reviews of Effectiveness, the ACP Journal Club, and citation lists (1966 to April 2004). Random effects meta-analysis was used to derive pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Random effects meta-regression was used to identify study-level covariates that predicted diagnostic performance. Results We identified 100 cohorts comparing US to venography in patients with suspected DVT. Overall sensitivity for proximal DVT (95% confidence interval) was 94.2% (93.2 to 95.0), for distal DVT was 63.5% (59.8 to 67.0), and specificity was 93.8% (93.1 to 94.4). Duplex US had pooled sensitivity of 96.5% (95.1 to 97.6) for proximal DVT, 71.2% (64.6 to 77.2) for distal DVT and specificity of 94.0% (92.8 to 95.1). Triplex US had pooled sensitivity of 96.4% (94.4 to 97.1%) for proximal DVT, 75.2% (67.7 to 81.6) for distal DVT and specificity of 94.3% (92.5 to 95.8). Compression US alone had pooled sensitivity of 93.8 % (92.0 to 95.3%) for proximal DVT, 56.8% (49.0 to 66.4) for distal DVT and specificity of 97.8% (97.0 to 98.4). Sensitivity was higher in more recently published studies and in cohorts with higher prevalence of DVT and more proximal DVT, and was lower in cohorts that reported interpretation by a radiologist. Specificity was higher in cohorts that excluded patients with previous DVT. No studies were identified that compared repeat US to venography in all patients. Repeat US appears to have a positive yield of 1.3%, with 89% of these being confirmed by venography. Conclusion Combined colour-doppler US techniques have optimal sensitivity, while compression US has optimal specificity for DVT. However, all estimates are subject to substantial unexplained heterogeneity. The role of repeat scanning is very uncertain and based upon limited data

Evaluation of the DAVROS (Development And Validation of Risk-adjusted Outcomes for Systems of emergency care) risk-adjustment model as a quality indicator for healthcare.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Risk-adjusted mortality rates can be used as a quality indicator if it is assumed that the discrepancy between predicted and actual mortality can be attributed to the quality of healthcare (ie, the model has attributional validity). The Development And Validation of Risk-adjusted Outcomes for Systems of emergency care (DAVROS) model predicts 7-day mortality in emergency medical admissions. We aimed to test this assumption by evaluating the attributional validity of the DAVROS risk-adjustment model. METHODS: We selected cases that had the greatest discrepancy between observed mortality and predicted probability of mortality from seven hospitals involved in validation of the DAVROS risk-adjustment model. Reviewers at each hospital assessed hospital records to determine whether the discrepancy between predicted and actual mortality could be explained by the healthcare provided. RESULTS: We received 232/280 (83%) completed review forms relating to 179 unexpected deaths and 53 unexpected survivors. The healthcare system was judged to have potentially contributed to 10/179 (8%) of the unexpected deaths and 26/53 (49%) of the unexpected survivors. Failure of the model to appropriately predict risk was judged to be responsible for 135/179 (75%) of the unexpected deaths and 2/53 (4%) of the unexpected survivors. Some 10/53 (19%) of the unexpected survivors died within a few months of the 7-day period of model prediction. CONCLUSIONS: We found little evidence that deaths occurring in patients with a low predicted mortality from risk-adjustment could be attributed to the quality of healthcare provided

Evaluation of global registry of acute cardiac events and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction scores in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome

Purposes: We aimed to evaluate the Global Registry of Acute Cardiac Events (GRACE) and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) scores in patients with suspected but not proven acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Basic procedures: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from the RATPAC trial. Standardized data were collected from 2263 patients presenting to 6 emergency departments with suspected but not proven ACS. Patients were followed up by record review and postal questionnaire at 30 and 90 days after recruitment to identify major adverse events, defined as death, emergency revascularization, life-threatening arrhythmia, hospitalization for ACS, or nonfatal acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Main findings: Data were available for 2243 patients (mean age, 54.5 years; 58% male). The major adverse event rate was 43 (2%) of 2243 after 30 days and 62 (3%) of 2243 after 90 days. The c statistics for 30-day events were 0.717 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.698-0.735) for GRACE and 0.682 (95% CI, 0.662-0.701) for TIMI. The corresponding 90-day c statistics were 0.726 (95% CI, 0.707-0.745) for GRACE and 0.693 (95% CI, 0.674-0.712) for TIMI. The c statistic for patient age alone was 0.656 for 30-day events and 0.689 for 90-day events. Principal conclusions: The GRACE and TIMI scores are little better than age alone as predictors of major adverse events in patients with suspected but not proven ACS, and thus add little to prognostic assessment of such patients. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Health utility after emergency medical admission: a cross-sectional survey

Abstract Objectives Health utility combines health related quality of life and mortality to produce a generic outcome measure reflecting both morbidity and mortality. It has not been widely used as an outcome measure in evaluations of emergency care and little is known about the feasibility of measurement, typical values obtained or baseline factors that predict health utility. We aimed to measure health utility after emergency medical admission, to compare health utility to age, gender and regional population norms, and identify independent predictors of health utility. Methods We selected 5760 patients across three hospitals who were admitted to hospital by ambulance as a medical emergency. The EQ-5D questionnaire was mailed to all who were still alive 30 days after admission. Health utility was estimated by applying tariff values to the EQ-5D responses or imputing a value of zero for those who had died. Multivariable analysis was used to identify independent predictors of health utility at 30 days. Results Responses were received from 2488 (47.7%) patients, while 541 (9.4%) had died. Most respondents reported some or severe problems with each aspect of health. Mean health utility was 0.49 (standard deviation 0.35) in survivors and 0.45 (0.36) including non-survivors. Some 75% had health utility below their expected value (mean loss 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.31 to 0.33) and 11% had health utility below zero (worse than death). On multivariable modelling, reduced health utility was associated with increased age and lower GCS, varied according to ICD10 code and was lower among females, patients with recent hospital admission, steroid therapy, or history of chronic respiratory disease, malignancy, diabetes or epilepsy. Conclusions Health utility can be measured after emergency medical admission, although responder bias may be significant. Health utility after emergency medical admission is poor compared to population norms. We have identified independent predictors or health utility that need to be measured and taken into account in non-randomized evaluations of emergency care.</p

The Randomised Assessment of Treatment using Panel Assay of Cardiac Markers (RATPAC) trial: A randomised controlled trial of point-of-care cardiac markers in the emergency department

Objectives: To determine whether using a point-of-care cardiac biomarker panel would increase the rate of successful discharge home after emergency department assessment, and affect the use of cardiac tests and treatments, subsequent attendance at or admission to hospital and major adverse events. Design and setting: Pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial in six acute hospitals in the UK. Participants: Patients attending with acute chest pain due to suspected myocardial infarction (N=2243). Interventions: Diagnostic assessment using a point-of-care biomarker panel consisting of creatine kinase, myocardial type, myoglobin and troponin I measured at baseline and 90 min compared with standard care without the point-of-care panel. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was successful discharge home, defined as having left hospital or awaiting transport home by 4 h after attendance and no major adverse events up to 3 months. Secondary outcome measures included length of stay, use of coronary care, cardiac interventions and inpatient beds, emergency department attendances, subsequent admissions, outpatient visits and major adverse events. Results: Point-of-care panel assessment was associated with an increased rate of successful discharge (358/1125 (32%) vs 146/1118 (13%); OR 3.81, 95% CI 3.01 to 4.82;