A prospective analysis of time to screen protocol ECGs in adult Emergency Department triage patients.

BACKGROUND: Early identification of ST elevation MI (STEMI) in emergency departments (ED) via electrocardiogram (ECG) expedites intervention. While screening of all ED chest pain ECGs should be obtained within 10 minutes per the American Heart Association, 40% of all ECGs are software-analyzed as "Normal" or "Otherwise Normal." However, the reliability of this analysis and the time for confirmation read are uncertain. This study investigates the time necessary for Patient Care Technicians (PCTs) to deliver ECGs to ED attendings to confirm automated interpretation. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted at a single academic ED. All patients ≥18 years who had a triage ECG were included. ECGs were obtained within 10 min of arrival, time-stamped, delivered for ED attending review and time-stamped upon PCT return to triage. Data were entered into REDCap and analyzed using StatPlus. RESULTS: During the 4-month study, 1768 ECGs were collected. Distribution of automated readings was: "Normal ECG" 33.7%; "Otherwise Normal ECG" 11.2%; and "borderline/abnormal" 55.1%. The median time necessary for PCTs to confirm a screening ECG was 2.8 min (IQR 2,4) with attending physicians interrupted an average of 14.6 times per day. CONCLUSION: Screening of triage ECGs is time-intensive and compounds the frequency of physician interruptions. Although findings are not generalizable, the impact of these interruptions on patient care and safety is paramount and universal. Future directions include validating the reliability of "Normal" and "Otherwise Normal" ECG automated readings to obviate the need to interrupt ED physician for expedited screening confirmation.

The Effect of Shared Decisionmaking on Patients' Likelihood of Filing a Complaint or Lawsuit: A Simulation Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Shared decisionmaking has been promoted as a method to increase the patient-centeredness of medical decisionmaking and decrease low-yield testing, but little is known about its medicolegal ramifications in the setting of an adverse outcome. We seek to determine whether the use of shared decisionmaking changes perceptions of fault and liability in the case of an adverse outcome. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled simulation experiment conducted by survey, using clinical vignettes featuring no shared decisionmaking, brief shared decisionmaking, or thorough shared decisionmaking. Participants were adult US citizens recruited through an online crowd-sourcing platform. Participants were randomized to vignettes portraying 1 of 3 levels of shared decisionmaking. All other information given was identical, including the final clinical decision and the adverse outcome. The primary outcome was reported likelihood of pursuing legal action. Secondary outcomes included perceptions of fault, quality of care, and trust in physician. RESULTS: We recruited 804 participants. Participants exposed to shared decisionmaking (brief and thorough) were 80% less likely to report a plan to contact a lawyer than those not exposed to shared decisionmaking (12% and 11% versus 41%; odds ratio 0.2; 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.31). Participants exposed to either level of shared decisionmaking reported higher trust, rated their physicians more highly, and were less likely to fault their physicians for the adverse outcome compared with those exposed to the no shared decisionmaking vignette. CONCLUSION: In the setting of an adverse outcome from a missed diagnosis, use of shared decisionmaking may affect patients' perceptions of fault and liability.

Shared Decision Making in Patients With Suspected Uncomplicated Ureterolithiasis: A Decision Aid Development Study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to develop a decision aid (DA) to facilitate shared decision making (SDM) around whether to obtain computed tomography (CT) imaging in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected uncomplicated ureterolithiasis. METHODS: We used evidence-based DA development methods, including qualitative methods and iterative stakeholder engagement, to develop and refine a DA. Guided by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), and a steering committee made up of stakeholders, we conducted interviews and focus groups with a purposive sample of patients, community members, emergency clinicians, and other stakeholders. We used an iterative process to code the transcripts and identify themes. We beta-tested the DA with patient-clinician dyads facing the decision in real time. RESULTS: From August 2018 to August 2019, we engaged 102 participants in the design and iterative refinement of a DA focused on diagnostic options for patients with suspected ureterolithiasis. Forty-six were ED patients, community members, or patients with ureterolithiasis, and the remaining were emergency clinicians (doctors, residents, advanced practitioners), researchers, urologists, nurses, or other physicians. Patients and clinicians identified several key decisional needs including an understanding of accuracy, uncertainty, radiation exposure/cancer risk, and clear return precautions. Patients and community members identified facilitators to SDM, such as a checklist of signs and symptoms. Many stakeholders, including both patients and ED clinicians, expressed a strong pro-CT bias. A six-page DA was developed, iteratively refined, and beta-tested. CONCLUSIONS: Using stakeholder engagement and qualitative inquiry, we developed an evidence-based DA to facilitate SDM around the question of CT scan utilization in patients with suspected uncomplicated ureterolithiasis. Future research will test the efficacy of the DA in facilitating SDM.