Utility of an initial D-dimer assay in screening for traumatic or spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the sensitivity of a D-dimer assay as a screening tool for possible traumatic or spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage. If adequately sensitive, the D-dimer assay may potentially permit omission of a more expensive computed tomography (CT) scan of the head when such hemorrhage is clinically suspected. METHODS: Prospective, consecutive, blinded study of patients (age > 16 years) requiring a CT scan of the head for suspected intracranial hemorrhage over a five-month period at a university, Level I trauma center. All study patients had a serum D-dimer assay obtained prior to their CT scans. Sensitivity and specificity, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), of the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) D-dimer assay for the detection of intracranial hemorrhage were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 319 patients entered in the study, 25 (7.8%) had a CT scan positive for intracranial hemorrhage. Patients with intracranial hemorrhage were more likely to have a positive D-dimer assay (chi-square = 13.075, p < 0.001). The D-dimer assay had 21 true-positive and four false-negative tests, resulting in a sensitivity of 84.0% (95% CI = 63.7% to 95.5%) and a specificity of 55.8% (95% CI = 55.5% to 55.9%). The four false-negative cases included one small intraparenchymal hemorrhage, one small subarachnoid hemorrhage, one moderate-sized intraparenchymal hemorrhage with mid-line shift, and one large subdural hematoma requiring emergent surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the catastrophic nature of missing an intracranial hemorrhage in the emergency department, the D-dimer assay is not adequately sensitive or predictive to use as a screening tool to allow routine omission of head CT scanning.

Emergency medicine resident errors: identification and educational utilization.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the error management systems emergency medicine residency directors (EMRDs) use to identify and report clinical errors made by emergency medicine residents and their satisfaction with error-based teaching as an educational tool. METHODS: All 112 EMRDs listed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in 1996 were sent a 15-item survey. Five areas of error evaluation and management were assessed: 1) systems for tracking and reporting clinical errors; 2) resident participation in the systems; 3) resident remediation; 4) EMRD-perceived satisfaction with current error-reporting mechanisms, their educational value, and their ability to identify and prevent errors; and 5) EMRDs' perceptions of faculty and resident satisfaction with the systems. RESULTS: The response rate was 86%. All EMRDs indicated that methods are in place to track and report errors at their institutions. These include morbidity and mortality conference (94%), quality assurance case review conference (76%), and continuous quality improvement audits (60%). A majority of programs (58%) present resident cases anonymously in order to enhance teaching (39%), to avoid embarrassment (28%), and to avoid individual blame (24%). While mandated resident remediation is not required at 48% of the programs, 24% require lectures, 17% require written reports, and 6% require extra clinical shifts. The EMRDs rated the educational value of morbidity and mortality conference as outstanding (11%) or excellent (53%), and rated their systems for identifying key resident errors as outstanding (0%), excellent (14%), or good (47%). CONCLUSIONS: All emergency medicine residency programs have systems to track and report resident errors. Resident participation varies widely, as does resident remediation processes. Most EMRDs are satisfied with their systems but few EMRDs rate them as excellent in the detection or prevention of clinical errors.

Screening for stimulant use in adult emergency department seizure patients.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of positive plasma drug screening for cocaine or amphetamine in adult emergency department seizure patients. METHODS: This prospective study evaluated consecutive eligible seizure patients who had a plasma sample collected as part of their clinical evaluation. Plasma was tested for amphetamine and the cocaine metabolite benzoylecgonine using enzyme-mediated immunoassay methodology. Plasma samples with benzoylecgonine greater than 150 ng/mL or an amphetamine greater than 500 ng/mL were defined as positive. Patient demographics, history of underlying drug or alcohol-related seizure disorder, estimated time from seizure to sample collection, history or suspicion of cocaine or amphetamine abuse, results of clinical urine testing for drugs of abuse, and assay results were recorded without patient identifiers. RESULTS: Fourteen of 248 (5.6%, 95% CI 2.7%-8.5%) plasma samples were positive by immunoassay testing for benzoylecgonine and no samples (0%, 95% CI 0-1.2%) were positive for amphetamine. Positive test results were more common in patient visits where there was a history or suspicion of cocaine or amphetamine abuse (p < 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: During this study period, routine plasma screening for cocaine and amphetamines in adult seizure patients had a low yield. As a result, routine plasma screening would yield few cases of stimulant drug in which there was neither a history nor suspicion of drug abuse in this population.