The Sydney Triage to Admission Risk Tool (START) to predict Emergency Department Disposition: A derivation and internal validation study using retrospective state-wide data from New South Wales, Australia.

BACKGROUND: Disposition decisions are critical to the functioning of Emergency Departments. The objectives of the present study were to derive and internally validate a prediction model for inpatient admission from the Emergency Department to assist with triage, patient flow and clinical decision making. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of State-wide Emergency Department data in New South Wales, Australia. Adult patients (age ≥ 16 years) were included if they presented to a Level five or six (tertiary level) Emergency Department in New South Wales, Australia between 2013 and 2014. The outcome of interest was in-patient admission from the Emergency Department. This included all admissions to short stay and medical assessment units and being transferred out to another hospital. Analyses were performed using logistic regression. Discrimination was assessed using area under curve and derived risk scores were plotted to assess calibration. RESULTS: 1,721,294 presentations from twenty three Level five or six hospitals were analysed. Of these 49.38% were male and the mean (sd) age was 49.85 years (22.13). Level 6 hospitals accounted for 47.70% of cases and 40.74% of cases were classified as an in-patient admission based on their mode of separation. The final multivariable model including age, arrival by ambulance, triage category, previous admission and presenting problem had an AUC of 0.82 (95% CI 0.81, 0.82). CONCLUSION: By deriving and internally validating a risk score model to predict the need for in-patient admission based on basic demographic and triage characteristics, patient flow in ED, clinical decision making and overall quality of care may be improved. Further studies are now required to establish clinical effectiveness of this risk score model.

Statewide retrospective study of low acuity emergency presentations in New South Wales, Australia: who, what, where and why?

OBJECTIVE: The present study aims to use a statewide population-based registry to assess the prevalence of low acuity emergency department (ED) presentations, describe the trend in presentation rates and to determine whether they were associated with various presentation characteristics such as the type of hospital as well as clinical and demographic variables. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a retrospective analysis of a population-based registry of ED presentations in New South Wales (NSW). Generalised estimating equations with log links were used to determine factors associated with low acuity presentations to account for repeat presentations and the possibility of clustering of outcomes. PARTICIPANTS: Patients were included in this analysis if they presented to an ED between January 2010 and December 2014. The outcomes of interest were low acuity presentation, defined as those who self-presented (were not transported by ambulance), were assigned a triage category of 4 or 5 (semiurgent or non-urgent) and discharged back to usual residence from ED. RESULTS: There were 10.7 million ED presentations analysed. Of these, 45% were classified as a low acuity presentation. There was no discernible increase in the rate of low acuity presentations across NSW between 2010 and 2014. The strongest predictors of low acuity ED presentation were age <40 years of age (OR 1.77); injury or musculoskeletal administrative and non-urgent procedures (OR 2.96); ear, nose and throat, eye or oral (OR 5.53); skin or allergy-type presenting problems (OR 2.84). CONCLUSIONS: Low acuity ED presentations comprise almost half of all ED presentations. Alternative emergency models of care may help meet the needs of these patients.

The TARGET pain study: Lessons from a painful marathon.

This perspective article summarises the experience of conducting a multicentre research project. We describe expected and unexpected hurdles we experienced as well as suggesting possible solutions for researchers embarking on multicentre studies.

Mechanisms, injuries and helmet use in cyclists presenting to an inner city emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the present study were to describe the injury profiles of cyclists presenting to an ED and determine the risk of significant head injury associated with bicycle helmet use. METHODS: This was a retrospective single trauma centre study of all adult cyclists presenting to an inner city ED and undergoing a trauma team review between January 2012 and June 2014. The outcome of interest was significant head injury defined as any head injury with an Abbreviated Injury Scale score of two or more. Variables analysed included demographic characteristics, helmet use at time of incident, location, time and the presence of intoxication. RESULTS: The most common body regions were upper limb injuries (57%), followed by head injuries (43%), facial injuries (30%) and lower limb injuries (24%). A lower proportion of people wearing helmets had significant head injury (17% vs 31%, P = 0.018) or facial injury (26% vs 48%, P = 0.0017) compared with non-helmet users. After adjustment for important covariates, helmet use was associated with a 70% decrease in the odds of significant head injury (odds ratio 0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.15, 0.76, P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Head injuries were common after inner city cycling incidents. The use of helmets was associated with a reduction in significant head injury.

Best-practice pain management in the emergency department: A cluster-randomised, controlled, intervention trial.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to provide 'adequate analgesia' (which decreases the pain score by ≥2 and to <4 [0-10 scale]) and determine the effect on patient satisfaction. METHODS: We undertook a multicentre, cluster-randomised, controlled, intervention trial in nine EDs. Patients with moderate pain (pain score of ≥4) were eligible for inclusion. The intervention was a range of educational activities to encourage staff to provide 'adequate analgesia'. It was introduced into five early intervention EDs between the 0 and 6 months time points and at four late intervention EDs between 3 and 6 months. At 0, 3 and 6 months, data were collected on demographics, pain scores, analgesia provided and pain management satisfaction 48 h post-discharge (6 point scale). RESULTS: Overall, 1317 patients were enrolled. Logistic regression (controlling for site and other confounders) indicated that, between 0 and 3 months, satisfaction increased significantly at the early intervention EDs (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.5 to 3.4 [P < 0.01]) but was stable at the control EDs (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.3 [P = 0.35]). Pooling of data from all sites indicated that the proportion of patients very satisfied with their pain management increased from 42.9% immediately pre-intervention to 53.9% after 3 months of intervention (difference in proportions 11.0%, 95% CI 4.2 to 17.8 [P = 0.001]). Logistic regression of all data indicated that 'adequate analgesia' was significantly associated with patient satisfaction (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.8 [P < 0.01]). CONCLUSIONS: The 'adequate analgesia' intervention significantly improved patient satisfaction. It provides a simple and efficient target in the pursuit of best-practice ED pain management.