An assessment of the association of bispectral index with 2 clinical sedation scales for monitoring depth of procedural sedation.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a study to assess the correlation of bispectral index (BIS) to 2 clinical sedation scales. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study. The BIS number was recorded at baseline and every 30 seconds. One investigator separately monitored the patients for depth of sedation using the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation and the Continuum of Depth of Sedation scales. RESULTS: During the 6-month period, 75 patients were enrolled. The Spearman correlation between the BIS and the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation was 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.74). The Spearman correlation between the BIS and the Continuum of Depth of Sedation was 0.53 (95% CI, 0.36-0.70). The mean minimum BIS for patients without a complication was 70 (SD, 15.9) compared with 68 (SD, 12.9) for patients with a complication (difference = 2; 95% CI, -7-11). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated moderate correlation between BIS and the 2 clinical sedation scales. The correlation is not strong enough to be used reliably in a clinical setting. The mean minimum BIS scores were not significantly different for those with sedation complications vs those without complications.

A randomized, controlled trial of clinical information shared from another institution.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Emergency physicians often must deliver medical care with minimal access to historical clinical information. We demonstrate the feasibility and potential value of increased access to patients' clinical information from another hospital while they are receiving care in the emergency department. METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomized, controlled trial of providing information from a large, longitudinal, computer-based patient record system of clinical data from an urban hospital to emergency physicians at either of 2 urban EDs. We randomized patients seen at either ED to have the information from the computer-based patient record system provided to their physician or to not have the information provided. We delivered information to the emergency physician both as a printed abstract and by means of online access to the computer-based patient record. We assessed charges, hospital admissions, repeat visits to EDs, and the emergency physicians' satisfaction with the information. RESULTS: Under certain assumptions, the intervention was estimated to decrease charges for ED care by approximately $26 per encounter (P =.03) at 1 hospital, but there was no effect on charges at the other hospital. This result was likely because of marked differences in the workflows and information access at these 2 EDs. We demonstrated no differences in admission rates or repeat visits to the ED. Emergency physicians identified that remembering their passwords and the time required to search for the information were significant barriers to accessing clinical information online. CONCLUSION: Our pilot study is the first to demonstrate the feasibility of sharing clinical information between different health care systems. We observed a trend toward cost savings at 1 of 2 hospitals and no differences in the quality measures we studied. Our experience underscores the difficulties inherent in studying the effects of community-wide health care interventions on cost and quality of ED care.