Emergency Presentations for Dizziness-Radiological Findings, Final Diagnoses, and Mortality.

Background: Dizziness is a frequent presentation in patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs), often triggering extensive work-up, including neuroimaging. Therefore, gathering knowledge on final diagnoses and outcomes is important. We aimed to describe the incidence of dizziness as primary or secondary complaint, to list final diagnoses, and to determine the use and yield of neuroimaging and outcomes in these patients. Methods: Secondary analysis of two observational cohort studies, including all patients presenting to the ED of the University Hospital of Basel from 30th January 2017-19th February 2017 and from 18th March 2019-20th May 2019. Baseline demographics, Emergency Severity Index (ESI), hospitalization, admission to Intensive Care Units (ICUs), and mortality were extracted from the electronic health record database. At presentation, patients underwent a structured interview about their symptoms, defining their primary and secondary complaints. Neuroimaging results were obtained from the picture archiving and communication system (PACS). Patients were categorized into three non-overlapping groups: dizziness as primary complaint, dizziness as secondary complaint, and absence of dizziness. Results: Of 10076 presentations, 232 (2.3%) indicated dizziness as their primary and 984 (9.8%) as their secondary complaint. In dizziness as primary complaint, the three (out of 73 main conditions defined) main diagnoses were nonspecific dizziness (47, 20.3%), dysfunction of the peripheral vestibular system (37, 15.9%), as well as somatization, depression, and anxiety (20, 8.6%). 104 of 232 patients (44.8%) underwent neuroimaging, with relevant findings in 5 (4.8%). In dizziness as primary complaint 30-day mortality was 0%. Conclusion: Work-up for dizziness in emergency presentations has to consider a broad differential diagnosis, but due to the low yield, it should include neuroimaging only in few and selected cases, particularly with additional neurological abnormalities. Presentation with primary dizziness carries a generally favorable prognosis lacking short-term mortality. .

Validation of a Simple Score for Mortality Prediction in a Cohort of Unselected Emergency Patients.

Background: Prognostication is an important component of medical decision-making. A patients' general prognosis can be difficult to measure. The Simple Prognostic Score (SPS) was designed to include patients' age, mobility, aggregated vital signs, and the treating physician's decision to admit to aid prognostication. Study Aim. Our study aim is to validate the SPS, compare it with the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) regarding its prognostic performance, and test the interrater reliability of the subjective variable of the decision to admit. Methods: Over a period of 9 weeks all patients presenting to the ED were included, routinely interviewed, final disposition registered, and followed up for one year. The C-statistics of discrimination was used to compare SPS and ESI predictions of 7-day, 30-day, and 1-year mortality. Youden J Statistics and Odds ratio, using logistical regression, were calculated for the Simple Prognostic Score. In a subset, a chart review was performed by senior physicians for a secondary assessment of the decision to admit. Interrater reliability was calculated using percentages and Cohens Kappa. Results: Out of 5648 patients, 3272 (57.9%) had a low SPS (i.e., ≤ 1); none of these patients died within 7 days, 2 (0.1%) died within 30 days after presentation and 19 (0.6%) died within a year. The area under the curve for 1-year mortality of the Simple Prognostic Score was 0.848. Secondary analysis of the interrater agreement for the decision to admit was 92%. Conclusion: In a prospective study of unselected ED patients, the Simple Prognostic Score was validated as a reliable predictor of short- and long-term mortality.

Throughput delays: causes, predictors, and outcomes - observational cohort in a Swiss emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Optimal throughput times in emergency departments can be adjudicated by emergency physicians. Emergency physicians can also define causes of delays during work-up, such as waiting for imaging, clinical chemistry, consultations, or exit blocks. For adequate streaming, the identification of predictors of delays is important, as the attribution of resources depends on acuity, resources, and expected throughput times. OBJECTIVE: This observational study aimed to identify the causes, predictors, and outcomes of emergency physician-adjudicated throughput delays. METHODS: Two prospective emergency department cohorts from January to February 2017 and from March to May 2019 around the clock in a tertiary care centre in Switzerland were investigated. All consenting patients were included. Delay was defined as the subjective adjudication of the responsible emergency physician regarding delay during emergency department work-up. Emergency physicians were interviewed for the occurrence and cause of delays. Baseline demographics, predictor values, and outcomes were recorded. The primary outcome - delay - was presented using descriptive statistics. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the associations between possible predictors and delays and hospitalization, intensive care, and death with delay. RESULTS: In 3656 (37.3%) of 9818 patients, delays were adjudicated. The patients with delays were older (59 years, interquartile range [IQR]: 39-76 years vs 49 years, IQR: 33-68 years) and more likely had impaired mobility, nonspecific complaints (weakness or fatigue), and frailty than the patients without delays. The main causes of delays were resident work-up (20.4%), consultations (20.2%), and imaging (19.4%). The predictors of delays were an Emergency Severity Index of 2 or 3 at triage (odds ratio [OR]: 3.00; confidence interval [CI]: 2.21-4.16; OR: 3.25; CI: 2.40-4.48), nonspecific complaints (OR: 1.70; CI: 1.41-2.04), and consultation and imaging (OR: 2.89; CI: 2.62-3.19). The patients with delays had an increased risk for admission (OR: 1.56; CI: 1.41-1.73) but not for mortality than those without delays. CONCLUSION: At triage, simple predictors such as age, immobility, nonspecific complaints, and frailty may help to identify patients at risk of delay, with the main reasons being resident work-up, imaging, and consultations. This hypothesis-generating observation will allow the design of studies aimed at the identification and elimination of possible throughput obstacles.

Characteristics of Asthma Exacerbations in Emergency Care in Switzerland-Demographics, Treatment, and Burden of Disease in Patients with Asthma Exacerbations Presenting to an Emergency Department in Switzerland (CARE-S).

Emergency care for asthma is provided by general practitioners, pulmonologists, and emergency departments (EDs). Although it is known that patients presenting to EDs with acute asthma exacerbations are a vulnerable population and that this mode of presentation is a risk marker for more severe complications, research on this population is scarce. We conducted a retrospective study on patients with asthma exacerbations who presented to the ED of the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland, during 2017-2020. Of the last 200 presentations, 100 were selected and analyzed to assess demographic information, the use of previous and ED-prescribed asthma medication, and clinical outcomes after a mean period of time of 18 months. Of these 100 asthma patients, 96 were self-presenters, and 43 had the second highest degree of acuity (emergency severity index 2). Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) step 1 and step 3 were the most common among patients with known GINA levels, accounting for 22 and 18 patients, respectively. A total of 4 patients were undergoing treatment with oral corticosteroids at presentation, and 34 were at discharge. At presentation, 38 patients used the combination therapy of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LABA), and 6 patients underwent ICS monotherapy. At discharge, 68 patients were prescribed with ICS/LABA. At entry to the ED, about one-third of patients did not use any asthma medication. In total, 10 patients were hospitalized. None of them needed invasive or non-invasive ventilation. A follow-up for the study was precluded by the majority of patients. This group of asthma patients seemed particularly vulnerable as their asthma medication at presentation was often not according to guidelines or even lacking, and almost all the patients had self-presented to the ED without any reference from a physician. The majority of patients did not give consent to the collection of any follow-up information. These medical shortcomings reflect an urgent medical need to improve care for patients at high risk of asthma exacerbations.