RESUMEN
STUDY OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis are to appraise the evidence in regard to the diagnostic accuracy of a low-risk History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin (HEART) score for prediction of major adverse cardiac events in emergency department (ED) patients. These included 4 subgroup analyses: by geographic region, the use of a modified low-risk HEART score (traditional HEART score [0 to 3] in addition to negative troponin results), using conventional versus high-sensitivity troponin assays in the HEART score, and a comparison of different post-ED-discharge patient follow-up intervals. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EBSCO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database for studies on the diagnostic performance of low-risk HEART scores to predict major adverse cardiac events among ED chest pain patients. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion, assessed the quality of studies with both an adapted Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 tool and an internally developed tool that combined components of the Quality in Prognostic Studies; Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies; and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated. RESULTS: There were 25 studies published from 2010 to 2017, with a total of 25,266 patients included in the final meta-analysis, of whom 9,919 (39.3%) were deemed to have low-risk HEART scores (0 to 3). Among patients with low-risk HEART scores, short-term major adverse cardiac events (30 days to 6 weeks) occurred in 2.1% of the population (182/8,832) compared with 21.9% of patients (3,290/15,038) with non-low-risk HEART scores (4 to 10). For patients with HEART scores of 0 to 3, the pooled sensitivity of short-term major adverse cardiac event predictions was 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93 to 0.98), specificity was 0.42 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.49), positive predictive value was 0.19 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.24), negative predictive value was 0.99 (95% CI 0.98 to 0.99), positive likelihood ratio was 1.66 (95% CI 1.50 to 1.85), and negative likelihood ratio was 0.09 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.15). Subgroup analysis showed that lower short-term major adverse cardiac events occurred among North American patients (0.7%), occurred when modified low-risk HEART score was used (0.8%), or occurred when high-sensitivity troponin was used for low-risk HEART score calculations (0.8%). CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, despite its use in different patient populations, the troponin type used, and timeline of follow-up, a low-risk HEART score had high sensitivity, negative predictive value, and negative likelihood ratio for predicting short-term major adverse cardiac events, although risk of bias and statistical heterogeneity were high.
Asunto(s)
Dolor en el Pecho/diagnóstico , Dolor en el Pecho/epidemiología , Cardiopatías/complicaciones , Troponina/sangre , Síndrome Coronario Agudo/diagnóstico , Enfermedad Aguda , Dolor en el Pecho/etiología , Unidades de Observación Clínica/normas , Electrocardiografía/métodos , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Femenino , Cardiopatías/sangre , Cardiopatías/diagnóstico , Cardiopatías/fisiopatología , Humanos , Masculino , Infarto del Miocardio/diagnóstico , Alta del Paciente/tendencias , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Pronóstico , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo , Sensibilidad y EspecificidadRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: We aim to externally validate the status of emergency department (ED) appropriate utilization and 72-h ED returns among homeless patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective single-center observational study. Patients were divided into two groups (homeless versus non-homeless). Patients' general characteristics, clinical variables, ED appropriate utilization, and ED return disposition deviations were compared and analyzed separately. RESULTS: Study enrolled a total of 63,990 ED visits. Homeless patients comprised 9.3% (5,926) of visits. Higher ED 72-h returns occurred among homeless patients in comparison to the non-homeless patients (17% versus 5%, P < 0.001). Rate of significant ED disposition deviations (e.g., admission, triage to operation room, or death) on return visits were lower in homeless patients when compared to non-homeless patient populations (15% versus 23%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Though ED return rate was higher among homeless patients, return visit case management seems appropriate, indicating that 72-h ED returns might not be an optimal healthcare quality measurement for homeless patients.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: A common emergency department (ED) patient care outcome metric is 72-hour ED return visits (EDRVs). Risks predictive of EDRV vary in different studies. However, risk differences associated with related versus unrelated EDRV and subsequent EDRV disposition deviations (EDRVDD) are rarely addressed. We aim to compare the potential risk patterns predictive of related and unrelated EDRV and further determine those potential risks predictive of EDRVDD. METHODS: We conducted a large retrospective observational study from September 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. ED Patient demographic characteristics and clinical metrics were compared among patients of 1) related; 2) unrelated; and 3) no EDRVs. EDRVDD was defined as obvious disposition differences between initial ED visit and return visits. A multivariate multinomial logistic regression was performed to determine the independent risks predictive of EDRV and EDRVDD after adjusting for all confounders. RESULTS: A total of 63,990 patients were enrolled; 4.65% were considered related EDRV, and 1.80% were unrelated. The top risks predictive of EDRV were homeless, patient left without being seen, eloped, or left against medical advice. The top risks predictive of EDRVDD were geriatric and whether patients had primary care physicians regardless as to whether patient returns were related or unrelated to their initial ED visits. CONCLUSION: Over 6% of patients experienced ED return visits within 72 hours. Though risks predicting such revisits were multifactorial, similar risks were identified not only for ED return visits, but also for return ED visit disposition deviations.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Higher physician self-reported empathy has been associated with higher overall patient satisfaction. However, more evidence-based research is needed to determine such association in an emergent care setting. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between physician self-reported empathy and after-care instant patient-to-provider satisfaction among Emergency Department (ED) healthcare providers with varying years of medical practice experience. RESEARCH DESIGN: A prospective observational study conducted in a tertiary care hospital ED. METHODS: Forty-one providers interacted with 1,308 patients across 1,572 encounters from July 1 through October 31, 2016. The Jefferson Scale of Empathy (JSE) was used to assess provider empathy. An after-care instant patient satisfaction survey, with questionnaires regarding patient-to-provider satisfaction specifically, was conducted prior to the patient moving out of the ED. The relation between physician empathy and patient satisfaction was estimated using risk ratios (RR) and their corresponding 95% confidence limits (CL) from log-binomial regression models. RESULTS: Emergency Medicine (EM) residents had the lowest JSE scores (median 111; interquartile range [IQR]: 107-122) and senior physicians had the highest scores (median 119.5; IQR: 111-129). Similarly, EM residents had the lowest percentage of "very satisfied" responses (65%) and senior physicians had the highest reported percentage of "very satisfied" responses (69%). There was a modest positive association between JSE and satisfaction (RR = 1.04; 95% CL: 1.00, 1.07). CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence of a positive association between ED provider self-reported empathy and after-care instant patient-to-provider satisfaction. Overall higher empathy scores were associated with higher patient satisfaction, though minor heterogeneity occurred between different provider characteristics.
Asunto(s)
Medicina de Emergencia/ética , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/ética , Empatía/ética , Satisfacción del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Relaciones Médico-Paciente/ética , Médicos/psicología , Adulto , Femenino , Conocimientos, Actitudes y Práctica en Salud , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Oportunidad Relativa , Estudios Prospectivos , Análisis de Regresión , Autoinforme , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) shift handoffs are potential sources of delay in care. We aimed to determine the impact that using standardized reporting tool and process may have on throughput metrics for patients undergoing a transition of care at shift change. METHODS: We performed a prospective, pre- and post-intervention quality improvement study from September 1 to November 30, 2015. A handoff procedure intervention, including a mandatory workshop and personnel training on a standard reporting system template, was implemented. The primary endpoint was patient length of stay (LOS). A comparative analysis of differences between patient LOS and various handoff communication methods were assessed pre- and post-intervention. Communication methods were entered a multivariable logistic regression model independently as risk factors for patient LOS. RESULTS: The final analysis included 1,006 patients, with 327 comprising the pre-intervention and 679 comprising the post-intervention populations. Bedside rounding occurred 45% of the time without a standard reporting during pre-intervention and increased to 85% of the time with the use of a standard reporting system in the post-intervention period (P < 0.001). Provider time (provider-initiated care to patient care completed) in the pre-intervention period averaged 297 min, but decreased to 265 min in the post-intervention period (P < 0.001). After adjusting for other communication methods, the use of a standard reporting system during handoff was associated with shortened ED LOS (OR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 - 0.90, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Standard reporting system use during emergency physician handoffs at shift change improves ED throughput efficiency and is associated with shorter ED LOS.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There has been an increasing emphasis on identifying elderly trauma patients. However, definitions based solely on age vary widely, ranging from age 55 to 80 years, hampering optimal trauma management for older patients. The goal of this study was to develop an objective, data-driven definition for "elderly" in trauma care by evaluating mortality risk as a function of age. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 872,861 adult (≥18 years) patients from the National Trauma Data Bank's National Sample Program from 2003 to 2010. The primary outcome was risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality determined using multivariate logistic regression. Contribution of age to mortality was investigated through step-wise regression and percent of R2 attributable to age. We searched for straight-line trends in mortality rate at each age using the spline function of Statistical Analysis Software. RESULTS: Statistically significant increases in mortality rate were noted at ages 37, 60, and 78. Age was found to contribute 10% to mortality compared with greater than 80% for Glasgow coma scale and injury severity score combined. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest using age 60 years as a data-driven definition of "elderly" in trauma.