The association between specific narrative elements and patient perspectives on acute pain treatment.

BACKGROUND: Narratives are effective tools for communicating with patients about opioid prescribing for acute pain and improving patient satisfaction with pain management. It remains unclear, however, whether specific narrative elements may be particularly effective at influencing patient perspectives. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of data collected for Life STORRIED, a multicenter RCT. Participants included 433 patients between 18 and 70 years-old presenting to the emergency department (ED) with renal colic or musculoskeletal back pain. Participants were instructed to view one or more narrative videos during their ED visit in which a patient storyteller discussed their experiences with opioids. We examined associations between exposure to individual narrative features and patients' 1) preference for opioids, 2) recall of opioid-related risks and 3) perspectives about the care they received. RESULTS: Participants were more likely to watch videos featuring storytellers who shared their race or gender. We found that participants who watched videos that contained specific narrative elements, for example mention of prescribed opioids, were more likely to recall having received information about pain treatment options on the day after discharge (86.3% versus 72.9%, p = 0.02). Participants who watched a video that discussed family history of addiction reported more participation in their treatment decision than those who did not (7.6 versus 6.8 on a ten-point scale, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Participants preferentially view narratives featuring storytellers who share their race or gender. Narrative elements were not meaningfully associated with patient-centered outcomes. These findings have implications for the design of narrative communication tools.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: This executive summary of the clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. These guidelines present an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

A Multicentered Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Effectiveness of Pain Treatment Communication Tools in Emergency Department Patients With Back or Kidney Stone Pain.

Objectives. To compare the effectiveness of 3 approaches for communicating opioid risk during an emergency department visit for a common painful condition. Methods. This parallel, multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted at 6 geographically disparate emergency department sites in the United States. Participants included adult patients between 18 and 70 years of age presenting with kidney stone or musculoskeletal back pain. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 risk communication strategies: (1) a personalized probabilistic risk visual aid, (2) a visual aid and a video narrative, or 3) general risk information. The primary outcomes were accuracy of risk recall, reported opioid use, and treatment preference at time of discharge. Results. A total of 1301 participants were enrolled between June 2017 and August 2019. There was no difference in risk recall at 14 days between the narrative and probabilistic groups (43.7% vs 38.8%; absolute risk reduction = 4.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.98, 12.75). The narrative group had lower rates of preference for opioids at discharge than the general risk information group (25.9% vs 33.0%; difference = 7.1%; 95% CI = 0.64, 0.97). There were no differences in reported opioid use at 14 days between the narrative, probabilistic, and general risk groups (10.5%, 10.3%, and 13.3%, respectively; P = .44). Conclusions. An emergency medicine communication tool incorporating probabilistic risk and patient narratives was more effective than general information in mitigating preferences for opioids in the treatment of pain but was not more effective with respect to opioid use or risk recall. Trial Registration. Clinical Trials.gov identifier: NCT03134092. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(S1):S45-S55. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306511).

Design and Implementation of a Curriculum for Emergency Medicine Residents to Address Medications and Treatment Referral for Opioid Use Disorder.

Background: Medications for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) are recognized as successful treatments for Opioid Use Disorder (OUD). The Emergency Department is well situated to initiate MOUD and begin the referral process. Unfortunately, uptake of this practice among Emergency Medicine (EM) physicians has been slow. EM physicians may feel inadequately prepared to provide MOUD and addiction referral services due to lack of previous training and experience. The goal of this pilot study was to create, implement, and evaluate an OUD management curriculum for EM residents and measure impact on knowledge, practice, and empathy. Methods: A 4.5-hour curriculum was developed, incorporating the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Center for Substance Abuse Treatment mission statement as well as the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the American Board of Emergency Medicine resident physician milestones. The curriculum was inserted into an existing EM residency didactic block at an urban, tertiary care, residency program. Surveys were obtained pre- and post-intervention. Results: Post curriculum surveys demonstrated improved knowledge of buprenorphine/naloxone including indications, clinical effects and side-effects (p < 0.05). Surveys also noted increased comfort prescribing buprenorphine/naloxone for opioid withdrawal and misuse and instructing patients on home induction (p < 0.05). Additionally, residents responded positively regarding the impact of the curriculum on their understanding of the topic and their subsequent confidence in managing patients with OUD in the ED setting. Conclusion: A dedicated brief MOUD and referral curriculum can be effectively integrated into EM resident education to provide valuable clinical knowledge that may affect clinical practice.

Predictors of linkage to care for a nontargeted emergency department hepatitis C screening program.

OBJECTIVE: We implemented a nontargeted, opt-out HCV testing and linkage to care (LTC) program in an academic tertiary care emergency department (ED). Despite research showing the critical role of ED-based HCV testing programs, predictors of LTC have not been defined for patients identified through the nontargeted ED testing strategy. In order to optimize health outcomes for patients with HCV, we sought to identify predictors of LTC failure. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients who were tested for HCV in the ED between August 2015 and September 2018 and were confirmed to have chronic HCV infection through RNA testing. We used logistic regression to assess the relationship between candidate predictors and the primary outcome, LTC failure, which was defined as a patient not being seen by an HCV treating provider after discharge from the ED. RESULTS: Of 53,297 patients tested, 1,674 (3.1%) had HCV on confirmatory testing, and 355 (21%) linked to care. Predictors of LTC failure included younger age (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.95-0.97), white race (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.23-2.22), homelessness (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.19-3.08), substance use (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.34-2.34), and comorbid psychiatric illness (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.59-2.94). Patients with significant medical comorbidities (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.41-0.78) or HIV co-infection (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03-0.46) were less likely to experience LTC failure. CONCLUSIONS: One in five HCV-infected patients identified by ED-based nontargeted testing successfully linked to an HCV treating provider. Predictors of LTC failure may guide the development of targeted interventions to improve LTC success.

What is the effect of a decision aid in potentially vulnerable parents? Insights from the head CT choice randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypotheses that use of the Head CT Choice decision aid would be similarly effective in all parent/patient dyads but parents with high (vs low) numeracy experience a greater increase in knowledge while those with low (vs high) health literacy experience a greater increase in trust. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a cluster randomized trial conducted at seven sites. One hundred seventy-two clinicians caring for 971 children at intermediate risk for clinically important traumatic brain injuries were randomized to shared decision making facilitated by the DA (n = 493) or to usual care (n = 478). We assessed for subgroup effects based on patient and parent characteristics, including socioeconomic status (health literacy, numeracy and income). We tested for interactions using regression models with indicators for arm assignment and study site. RESULTS: The decision aid did not increase knowledge more in parents with high numeracy (P for interaction [Pint ] = 0.14) or physician trust more in parents with low health literacy (Pint  = 0.34). The decision aid decreased decisional conflict more in non-white parents (decisional conflict scale, -8.14, 95% CI: -12.33 to -3.95; Pint  = 0.05) and increased physician trust more in socioeconomically disadvantaged parents (trust in physician scale, OR: 8.59, 95% CI: 2.35-14.83; Pint  = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the Head CT Choice decision aid resulted in less decisional conflict in non-white parents and greater physician trust in socioeconomically disadvantaged parents. Decision aids may be particularly effective in potentially vulnerable parents.

Head CT overuse in children with a mild traumatic brain injury within two Canadian emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: The validated Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Network (PECARN) rule helps determine the relevance of a head computerized tomography (CT) for children with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). We sought to estimate the potential overuse of head CT within two Canadian emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of children seen in 2016 in a paediatric Level I (site 1) and a general Level II (site 2) trauma centre. We reviewed charts to determine the appropriateness of head CT use according to the PECARN rule in a random subset of children presenting with head trauma. Simple descriptive statistics were applied. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred and forty-six eligible patients younger than 17 years consulted during the study period. Of the 203 randomly selected cases per setting, 16 (7.9%) and 24 (12%), respectively from sites 1 and 2 had a head CT performed. Based on the PECARN rule, we estimated the overuse for the younger group (<2 years) to be below 3% for both hospitals without significant difference between them. For the older group (≥2 years), the overuse rate was higher at site 2 (9.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.8 to 17% versus 1.2%, 95% CI: 0.2 to 6.5%, P=0.03). CONCLUSION: Both EDs demonstrated overuse rates below 10% although it was higher for the older group at site 2. Such low rates can potentially be explained by the university affiliation of both hospitals and by two Canadian organizations working to raise awareness among physicians about the overuse of diagnostic tools and dangers inherent to radiation.

Opioid Prescribing for Opioid-Naive Patients in Emergency Departments and Other Settings: Characteristics of Prescriptions and Association With Long-Term Use.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We explore the emergency department (ED) contribution to prescription opioid use for opioid-naive patients by comparing the guideline concordance of ED prescriptions with those attributed to other settings and the risk of patients' continuing long-term opioid use. METHODS: We used analysis of administrative claims data (OptumLabs Data Warehouse 2009 to 2015) of opioid-naive privately insured and Medicare Advantage (aged and disabled) beneficiaries to compare characteristics of opioid prescriptions attributed to the ED with those attributed to other settings. Concordance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines and rate of progression to long-term opioid use are reported. RESULTS: We identified 5.2 million opioid prescription fills that met inclusion criteria. Opioid prescriptions from the ED were more likely to adhere to CDC guidelines for dose, days' supply, and formulation than those attributed to non-ED settings. Disabled Medicare beneficiaries were the most likely to progress to long-term use, with 13.4% of their fills resulting in long-term use compared with 6.2% of aged Medicare and 1.8% of commercial beneficiaries' fills. Compared with patients in non-ED settings, commercial beneficiaries receiving opioid prescriptions in the ED were 46% less likely, aged Medicare patients 56% less likely, and disabled Medicare patients 58% less likely to progress to long-term opioid use. CONCLUSION: Compared with non-ED settings, opioid prescriptions provided to opioid-naive patients in the ED were more likely to align with CDC recommendations. They were shorter, written for lower daily doses, and less likely to be for long-acting formulations. Prescriptions from the ED are associated with a lower risk of progression to long-term use.

Access to primary care and computed tomography use in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The decision to obtain a computed tomography CT scan in the emergency department (ED) is complex, including a consideration of the risk posed by the test itself weighed against the importance of obtaining the result. In patients with limited access to primary care follow up the consequences of not making a diagnosis may be greater than for patients with ready access to primary care, impacting diagnostic reasoning. We set out to determine if there is an association between CT utilization in the ED and patient access to primary care. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of all ED visits in which a CT scan was obtained between 2003 and 2012 at an academic, tertiary-care center. Data were abstracted from the electronic medical record and administrative databases and included type of CT obtained, demographics, comorbidities, and access to a local primary care provider (PCP). CT utilization rates were determined per 1000 patients. RESULTS: A total of 595,895 ED visits, including 98,001 visits in which a CT was obtained (16.4%) were included. Patients with an assigned PCP accounted for 55% of all visits. Overall, CT use per 1000 ED visits increased from 142.0 in 2003 to 169.2 in 2012 (p < 0.001), while the number of annual ED visits remained stable. CT use per 1000 ED visits increased from 169.4 to 205.8 over the 10-year period for patients without a PCP and from 118.9 to 142.0 for patients with a PCP. Patients without a PCP were more likely to have a CT performed compared to those with a PCP (OR 1.57, 95%CI 1.54 to 1.58; p < 0.001). After adjusting for age, gender, year of visit and number of comorbidities, patients without a PCP were more likely to have a CT performed (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.21, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The overall rate of CT utilization in the ED increased over the past 10 years. CT utilization was significantly higher among patients without a PCP. Increased availability of primary care, particularly for follow-up from the ED, could reduce CT utilization and therefore decrease costs, ED lengths of stay, and radiation exposure.

Trends, characteristics, and incidence of anaphylaxis in 2001-2010: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening systemic allergic reaction. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the incidence rate and causes of anaphylaxis during a 10-year period in Olmsted County, Minnesota. METHODS: Using the resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project, a comprehensive records linkage system, we performed a population-based incidence study in Olmsted County, Minnesota, from 2001 through 2010. All cases with a diagnosis of anaphylactic shock and 20% of cases with related diagnoses were manually reviewed. The relationships of age group, sex, and year of anaphylaxis with incidence rates were assessed by fitting Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Six hundred thirty-one cases of anaphylaxis were identified. The median age was 31 years (interquartile range, 19-44 years). The overall age- and sex-adjusted incidence rate was 42 (95% CI, 38.7-45.3) per 100,000 person-years. There was a significant increase in the overall incidence of anaphylaxis during the study period, with an average increase of 4.3% per year (P < .001). In addition, there was a 9.8% increase per year in the incidence rate of food-related anaphylaxis. Food-related anaphylaxis was most common in children aged 0 to 9 years, venom-related anaphylaxis was most common in those 20 to 39 years of age, and medication-related anaphylaxis was most common in those 30 to 39 years of age. CONCLUSION: The overall incidence rate of anaphylaxis was 42 per 100,000 person-years from 2001-2010 in Olmsted County, Minnesota. The incidence of anaphylaxis increased over time, and several inciting triggers were uniquely associated with different age groups.

Shared Decisionmaking in the Emergency Department: A Guiding Framework for Clinicians.

Shared decisionmaking has been proposed as a method to promote active engagement of patients in emergency care decisions. Despite the recent attention shared decisionmaking has received in the emergency medicine community, including being the topic of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference, misconceptions remain in regard to the precise meaning of the term, the process, and the conditions under which it is most likely to be valuable. With the help of a patient representative and an interaction designer, we developed a simple framework to illustrate how shared decisionmaking should be approached in clinical practice. We believe it should be the preferred or default approach to decisionmaking, except in clinical situations in which 3 factors interfere. These 3 factors are lack of clinical uncertainty or equipoise, patient decisionmaking ability, and time, all of which can render shared decisionmaking infeasible. Clinical equipoise refers to scenarios in which there are 2 or more medically reasonable management options. Patient decisionmaking ability refers to a patient's capacity and willingness to participate in his or her emergency care decisions. Time refers to the acuity of the clinical situation (which may require immediate action) and the time that the clinician has to devote to the shared decisionmaking conversation. In scenarios in which there is only one medically reasonable management option, informed consent is indicated, with compassionate persuasion used as appropriate. If time or patient capacity is lacking, physician-directed decisionmaking will occur. With this framework as the foundation, we discuss the process of shared decisionmaking and how it can be used in practice. Finally, we highlight 5 common misconceptions in regard to shared decisionmaking in the ED. With an improved understanding of shared decisionmaking, this approach should be used to facilitate the provision of high-quality, patient-centered emergency care.

Does gender bias in cardiac stress testing still exist? A videographic analysis nested in a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Despite a high prevalence of coronary heart disease in both genders, studies show a gender disparity in evaluation whereby women are less likely than men to undergo timely or comprehensive cardiac investigation. Using videographic analysis, we sought to quantify gender differences in provider recommendations and patient evaluations. METHODS: We analyzed video recordings from our Chest Pain Choice trial, a single center patient-level randomized trial in which emergency department patients with chest pain being considered for cardiac stress testing were randomized to shared decision-making or usual care. Patient-provider interactions were video recorded. We compared characteristics and outcomes by gender. RESULTS: Of the 204 patients enrolled (101 decision aid; 103 usual care), 120 (58.8%) were female. Of the 75 providers evaluated, 20 (26.7%) were female. The mean (SD) pretest probability of acute coronary syndrome was lower in women [3.7% (2.2) vs 6.7% (4.4), P=.0002]. There was no gender effect on duration of discussion, clinician recommendations, OPTION scores, patient perceptions, or eventual patient dispositions. When the clinician and patient gender matched, OPTION scores were lower (interaction P=.002), and patients were less likely to find the information to be very helpful (interaction P=.10). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a lower pretest probability of acute coronary syndrome in women, we did not observe any significant gender disparity in how patients were managed and evaluated. When the patients' and providers' gender matched, the provider involved them less in the decision making process, and the information provided was less helpful than when the genders did not match.

Patient-Centered Decision Support: Formative Usability Evaluation of Integrated Clinical Decision Support With a Patient Decision Aid for Minor Head Injury in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: The Canadian Computed Tomography (CT) Head Rule, a clinical decision rule designed to safely reduce imaging in minor head injury, has been rigorously validated and implemented, and yet expected decreases in CT were unsuccessful. Recent work has identified empathic care as a key component in decreasing CT overuse. Health information technology can hinder the clinician-patient relationship. Patient-centered decision tools to support the clinician-patient relationship are needed to promote evidence-based decisions. OBJECTIVE: Our objective is to formatively evaluate an electronic tool that not only helps clinicians at the bedside to determine the need for CT use based on the Canadian CT Head Rule but also promotes evidence-based conversations between patients and clinicians regarding patient-specific risk and patients' specific concerns. METHODS: User-centered design with practice-based and participatory decision aid development was used to design, develop, and evaluate patient-centered decision support regarding CT use in minor head injury in the emergency department. User experience and user interface (UX/UI) development involved successive iterations with incremental refinement in 4 phases: (1) initial prototype development, (2) usability assessment, (3) field testing, and (4) beta testing. This qualitative approach involved input from patients, emergency care clinicians, health services researchers, designers, and clinical informaticists at every stage. RESULTS: The Concussion or Brain Bleed app is the product of 16 successive iterative revisions in accordance with UX/UI industry design standards. This useful and usable final product integrates clinical decision support with a patient decision aid. It promotes shared use by emergency clinicians and patients at the point of care within the emergency department context. This tablet computer app facilitates evidence-based conversations regarding CT in minor head injury. It is adaptable to individual clinician practice styles. The resultant tool includes a patient injury evaluator based on the Canadian CT Head Rule and provides patient specific risks using pictographs with natural frequencies and cues for discussion about patient concerns. CONCLUSIONS: This tool was designed to align evidence-based practices about CT in minor head injury patients. It establishes trust, empowers active participation, and addresses patient concerns and uncertainty about their condition. We hypothesize that, when implemented, the Concussion or Brain Bleed app will support-not hinder-the clinician-patient relationship, safely reduce CT use, and improve the patient experience of care.

How Do We Balance the Long-Term Health of a Patient With the Short-Term Risk to the Physician?

BACKGROUND: There is a wide variation in practice patterns among emergency medicine physicians; many factors weigh into the medical decision-making process including the health of the patient as well as short-term risk to the physician. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our discussion is to illustrate specific scenarios where medical decisions are focused on the physician's short-term risk, then to propose an approach to shifting the balance to the patient's long-term health. METHODS: Using recent data on the evaluation, disposition, and outcomes of patients with low-risk chest pain in the emergency department, we calculate the risk of outpatient evaluation compared to the common practice of admission or observation. RESULTS: Patients with low-risk chest pain and negative initial evaluation in the emergency department with 2 normal cardiac biomarkers, normal vital signs, and non-ischemic, interpretable ECGs, have an extremely low-risk of a short term clinically relevant adverse cardiac event. There is a suggestion of a higher patient risk from admission, prompting consideration that continued evaluation of the chest pain as an outpatient may be safer than admission or observation. CONCLUSION: A test/intervention should be done if the risk of a missed diagnosis or adverse outcome is greater that the risk of the test/intervention. Involving the patient in the decision-making process may help to shift the management balance from the physician's short-term concern of their own risk, to the patient's long-term health.

Rate of recurrent anaphylaxis and associated risk factors among Olmsted County, Minnesota, residents: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The rate and risk factors for recurrence of anaphylaxis are not well known. OBJECTIVE: To measure the rate and risk factors for recurrent anaphylaxis in a population-based cohort in Olmsted County, Minnesota. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study using the Rochester Epidemiology Project, a comprehensive medical records linkage system, to obtain records of patients who presented to medical centers within the Olmsted County area with anaphylaxis from January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2010. We evaluated the rate and associations of risk factors with anaphylaxis recurrence. RESULTS: Among the 611 patients with anaphylaxis, 50 (8%) experienced a total of 60 recurrences within the 10-year period, resulting in a recurrence rate of 2.6 per 100 person-years. A history of atopic dermatitis (hazard ratio [HR], 5.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-16.1; P = .001), presenting symptoms of cough (HR, 4.7; 95% CI, 2.1-10.7; P < .001) oral pruritus (HR, 9.9; 95% CI, 4.3-23.2; P < .001), and receiving corticosteroids (HR, 5.2; 95% CI, 2.3-11.7; P < .001) were associated with an increased risk of recurrence. The cardiovascular symptom of chest pain (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.07-0.79; P = .02) was associated with a decreased risk of recurrence. CONCLUSION: In this epidemiologic study, the rate of recurrence was 8% during the 10-year study period (recurrence rate of 2.6 per 100 person-years). Those with atopic dermatitis and mucocutaneous or respiratory symptoms were more likely to have a recurrent anaphylactic event. Our findings underscore the importance of early patient access to self-injectable epinephrine and referral to an allergist/immunologist for additional testing and education.

Pilot Study of Kano "Attractive Quality" Techniques to Identify Change in Emergency Department Patient Experience.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We describe the use of the Kano Attractive Quality analytic tool to improve an identified patient experience gap in perceived compassion by emergency department (ED) providers. METHODS: In phase 1, point-of-service surveying assessed baseline patient perception of ED provider compassion. Phase 2 deployed Kano surveys to predict the effect of 4 proposed interventions on patient perception. Finally, phase 3 compared patients receiving standard care versus the Kano-identified intervention to assess the actual effect on patient experience. RESULTS: In phase 1, 193 of 200 surveys (97%) were completed, showing a baseline median score of 4 out of 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 3 to 5), with top box percentage of 33% for patients' perception of receiving compassionate care. In phase 2, 158 of 180 surveys (88%) using Kano-formatted questions were completed, and the data predicted that increasing shared decisionmaking would cause the greatest improvement in the patient experience. Finally, in phase 3, 45 of 49 surveys (92%) were returned and demonstrated a significant improvement in perceived concern and sensitivity, 5 (IQR 5 to 5) versus 4 (IQR 3 to 5) with a difference of 1 (95% CI 0.1-1.9) and a top box rating of 79% versus 35% with a difference of 44% (95% CI 12-66) by patients who received dedicated shared decisionmaking interventions versus those receiving standard of care. CONCLUSION: Kano analysis is likely predictive of change in patient experience. Kano methods may prove as useful in changing management of the health care industry as it has been in other industries.

Appropriateness of epinephrine use in ED patients with anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Studies have demonstrated low rates of emergency department (ED) epinephrine administration for anaphylaxis patients, suggestive of ED undertreatment of anaphylaxis. Our study assessed the appropriateness of ED epinephrine administration in anaphylaxis management. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted involving ED patients presenting with possible allergic reactions. Patients and ED providers completed questionnaires regarding the suspected trigger, signs and symptoms, and prehospital treatment. Two board-certified allergists-immunologists independently reviewed the questionnaires, as well as electronic health records, to determine whether the cases represented anaphylaxis and whether ED epinephrine administration was appropriate. RESULTS: Among 174 patients enrolled in the study, 61 (35%) were confirmed to have anaphylaxis. Overall, 47 anaphylaxis patients (77%) received epinephrine either before ED arrival or in the ED. In the latter situation, 24 anaphylaxis patients (39%) received epinephrine and 37 (61%) did not. Of the patients who received ED epinephrine, the allergists-immunologists determined that its administration was appropriate in all cases (95% confidence interval [CI], 83%-100%). Among the 37 patients who did not receive ED epinephrine, the allergists-immunologists determined that nonadministration of epinephrine was appropriate in 36 patients (97%; 95% CI, 84%-100%). The allergists-immunologists determined that overall, ED management was appropriate for 60 (98%) of 61 patients with anaphylaxis (95% CI, 90%-100%). CONCLUSIONS: Although more than 60% of anaphylaxis patients did not receive epinephrine in the ED, the allergists-immunologists deemed ED management appropriate in 98% of total cases. Previous retrospective studies may underestimate the appropriateness of ED anaphylaxis management, particularly when prehospital epinephrine administration is not reported.

Predicting Risk of Endocarditis Using a Clinical Tool (PREDICT): Scoring System to Guide Use of Echocardiography in the Management of Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia.

BACKGROUND: Infective endocarditis (IE) is a serious complication of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB). There is limited clinical evidence to guide use of echocardiography in the management of SAB cases. METHODS: Baseline and 12-week follow-up data of all adults hospitalized at our institution with SAB from 2006 to 2011 were reviewed. Clinical predictors of IE were identified using multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the 757 patients screened, 678 individuals with SAB (24% community acquired, 56% healthcare associated, and 20% nosocomial) met study criteria. Eighty-five patients (13%) were diagnosed with definite IE within the 12 weeks of initial presentation based on modified Duke criteria. The proportion of patients with IE was 22% (36/166) in community-acquired SAB, 11% (40/378) in community-onset healthcare-associated SAB, and 7% (9/136) in nosocomial SAB. Community-acquired SAB, presence of cardiac device, and prolonged bacteremia (≥ 72 hours) were identified as independent predictors of IE in multivariable analysis. Two scoring systems, day 1 (SAB diagnosis day) and day 5 (when day 3 culture results are known), were derived based on the presence of these risk factors, weighted in magnitude by the corresponding regression coefficients. A score of ≥ 4 for day 1 model had a specificity of 96% and sensitivity of 21%, whereas a score of <2 for day 5 model had a sensitivity of 98.8% and negative predictive value of 98.5%. CONCLUSIONS: We propose 2 novel scoring systems to guide use of echocardiography in SAB cases. Larger prospective studies are needed to validate the classification performance of these scoring systems.

Success of elective cholecystectomy treatment plans after emergency department visit.

BACKGROUND: Differentiation between patients with acute cholecystitis and patients with severe biliary colic can be challenging. Patients with undiagnosed acute cholecystitis can incur repeat emergency department (ED) visits, which is resource intensive. METHODS: Billing records from 2000-2013 of all adults who visited the ED in the 30 d preceding their cholecystectomy were analyzed. Patients who were discharged from the ED and underwent elective cholecystectomy were compared with those who were discharged and returned to the ED within 30 d. T-tests, chi-square tests, and multivariable analysis were used as appropriate. RESULTS: From 2000-2013, 3138 patients (34%) presented to the ED within 30 d before surgery, 63% were women, mean age 51 y, and of those 1625 were directly admitted from the ED for cholecystectomy, whereas 1513 patients left the ED to return for an elective cholecystectomy. Patients who were discharged were younger (mean age 49 versus 54 y, P < 0.001) and had shorter ED stays (5.9 versus 7.2 h, P < 0.001) than the patients admitted immediately. Of the discharged patients, 303 (20%) returned to the ED within 30 d to undergo urgent cholecystectomy. Compared with patients with successful elective cholecystectomy after the ED visit, those who failed the pathway were more likely to have an American Society of Anesthesiologists score ≥3 and were <40 or ≥60 compared with the successful group. CONCLUSIONS: One in five patients failed the elective cholecystectomy pathway after ED discharge, leading to additional patient distress and use of resources. Further risk factor assessment may help design efficient care pathways.