Expedited and Comprehensive Management of Low-Risk TIA Patients in the Emergency Department is Safe and Less Costly.

OBJECTIVES: Transient ischemic attack (TIA) can be a warning sign of an impending stroke. The objective of our study is to assess the feasibility, safety, and cost savings of a comprehensive TIA protocol in the emergency room for low-risk TIA patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective, single-center cohort study performed at an academic comprehensive stroke center. We implemented an emergency department-based TIA protocol pathway for low-risk TIA patients (defined as ABCD2 score < 4 and without significant vessel stenosis) who were able to undergo vascular imaging and a brain MRI in the emergency room. Patients were set up with rapid outpatient follow-up in our stroke clinic and scheduled for an outpatient echocardiogram, if indicated. We compared this cohort to TIA patients admitted prior to the implementation of the TIA protocol who would have qualified. Outcomes of interest included length of stay, hospital cost, radiographic and echocardiogram findings, recurrent neurovascular events within 30 days, and final diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 138 patients were assessed (65 patients in the pre-pathway cohort, 73 in the expedited, post-TIA pathway implementation cohort). Average time from MRI order to MRI end was 6.4 h compared to 2.3 h in the pre- and post-pathway cohorts, respectively (p < 0.0001). The average length of stay for the pre-pathway group was 28.8 h in the pre-pathway cohort compared to 7.7 h in the post-pathway cohort (p < 0.0001). There were no differences in neuroimaging or echocardiographic findings. There were no differences in the 30 days re-presentation for stroke or TIA or mortality between the two groups. The direct cost per TIA admission was $2,944.50 compared to $1,610.50 for TIA patients triaged through the pathway at our institution. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the feasibility, safety, and cost-savings of a comprehensive, emergency department-based TIA protocol. Further study is needed to confirm overall benefit of an expedited approach to TIA patient management and guide clinical practice recommendations.

Primary Care Physician Involvement in Shared Decision Making for Critically Ill Patients and Family Satisfaction with Care.

PURPOSE: An intensive care unit (ICU) patient's primary care physician (PCP) may be able to assist family with certain ICU shared medical decisions. We explored whether families of patients in nonopen ICUs who nevertheless report involvement of a patient's PCP in medical decision making are more satisfied with ICU shared decision making than families who do not. METHODS: Between March 2013 and December 2015, we administered the Family Satisfaction in the ICU 24 survey to family members of adult neuroscience ICU patients. We compared the mean score for the survey subsection regarding shared decision making (graded on a 100-point scale), as well as individual survey items, between those who reported the patient's PCP involvement in any medical decision making versus those who did not. RESULTS: Among 263 respondents, there was no difference in mean overall decision-making satisfaction scores for those who reported involvement (81.1; SD = 15.2) versus those who did not (80.1; SD = 12.8; P = .16). However, a higher proportion reporting involvement felt completely satisfied with their 1) inclusion in the ICU decision making process (75.9% vs 61.4%; P = .055), and 2) control over the care of the patient (73.6% vs 55.6%; P = .02), with no difference regarding consistency of clinical information provided by the medical team (64.8% vs 63.5%; P = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Families who report involvement of a patient's PCP in medical decision making for critically ill patients may be more satisfied than those who do not with regard to specific aspects of ICU decision making. Further research would help understand how best to engage PCPs in shared decisions.

Dedicated Afternoon Rounds for ICU Patients' Families and Family Satisfaction With Care.

OBJECTIVE: It was hypothesized that adding dedicated afternoon rounds for patients' families to supplement standard family support would improve overall family satisfaction with care in a neuroscience ICU. DESIGN: Pre- and postimplementation (pre-I and post-I) design. SETTING: Single academic neuroscience ICU. PATIENTS: Patients in the neuroscience ICU admitted for longer than 72 hours or made comfort measures only at any point during neuroscience ICU admission. INTERVENTION: The on-service attending intensivist and a neuroscience ICU nursing leader made bedside visits to families to address concerns during regularly scheduled, advertised times two afternoons each week. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One family member per patient during the pre-I and post-I periods was recruited to complete the Family Satisfaction in the ICU 24 instrument. Post-I respondents indicated whether they had participated in the afternoon rounds. For primary outcome, the mean pre-I and post-I composite Family Satisfaction in the ICU 24 scores (on a 100-point scale) were compared. A total of 146 pre-I (March 2013 to October 2014; capture rate, 51.6%) and 141 post-I surveys (October 2014 to December 2015; 47.2%) were collected. There was no difference in mean Family Satisfaction in the ICU 24 score between groups (pre-I, 89.2 ± 11.2; post-I, 87.4 ± 14.2; p = 0.6). In a secondary analysis, there was also no difference in mean Family Satisfaction in the ICU 24 score between the pre-I respondents and the 39.0% of post-I respondents who participated in family rounds. The mean Family Satisfaction in the ICU 24 score of the post-I respondents who reported no participation trended lower than the mean pre-I score, with fewer respondents in this group reporting complete satisfaction with emotional support (75% vs. 54%; p = 0.002), coordination of care (82% vs. 68%; p = 0.03), and frequency of communication by physicians (60% vs. 43%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Dedicated afternoon rounds for families twice a week may not necessarily improve an ICU's overall family satisfaction. Increased dissatisfaction among families who do not or cannot participate is possible.

Comparing accuracy of the Yale swallow protocol when administered by registered nurses and speech-language pathologists.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: (1) To describe the results of a web-based teaching module used by registered nurses to identify patients at risk of aspiration and (2) to determine accuracy of the registered nurse-administered 3-ounce water swallow challenge protocol, that is, drinking three ounces of water, a basic cognitive screen and oral mechanism evaluation, when compared with blinded ratings from speech-language pathology. BACKGROUND: Early identification of potential swallowing problems is important prior to ingestion of food, fluid and medications. Unfortunately, current nurse-administered screens use a variety of non-evidence-based assessments. It would be beneficial to use a valid, reliable and evidence-based screen, that is, the Yale swallow protocol. DESIGN: Prospective, blinded, referral-based. METHODS: Fifty-two registered nurses and 101 inpatients participated. First, each participant was administered the 3-ounce water swallow challenge protocol by a speech-language pathologist. Second, a nurse administered the protocol to the same patient within one hour and independently recorded results and diet recommendations. The nurse was blinded to the study's purpose and results of the speech-language pathologist's initial screening. Out of view, but simultaneous with the nurse-administered protocol, a speech-language pathologist rerated the patient's challenge for comparison with initial results and determined the accuracy of the nurse-administered protocol. RESULTS: Intra- and inter-rater protocol agreements for the two speech-language pathologists were 100%. Inter-rater protocol agreement between registered nurses and speech-language pathologists was 98·01%. CONCLUSIONS: Results confirm the reliability and accuracy of a registered nurse-administered Yale swallow protocol. The consequence of 98% accuracy combined with previously reported 96·5% sensitivity, 97·9% negative predictive value and <2% false negative rate allowed for adoption of the protocol for the entire general hospital population. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Avoidance of preventable prandial pulmonary aspiration as a cause of nosocomial infection is an important goal for all acute care hospitalised patients deemed at risk of aspiration.