Patient Preference and Risk Assessment in Opioid Prescribing Disparities: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Although racial disparities in acute pain control are well established, the role of patient analgesic preference and the factors associated with these disparities remain unclear. Objective: To characterize racial disparities in opioid prescribing for acute pain after accounting for patient preference and to test the hypothesis that racial disparities may be mitigated by giving clinicians additional information about their patients' treatment preferences and risk of opioid misuse. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a secondary analysis of data collected from Life STORRIED (Life Stories for Opioid Risk Reduction in the ED), a multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted between June 2017 and August 2019 in the emergency departments (EDs) of 4 academic medical centers. Participants included 1302 patients aged 18 to 70 years who presented to the ED with ureter colic or musculoskeletal back and/or neck pain. Interventions: The treatment arm was randomized to receive a patient-facing intervention (not examined in this secondary analysis) and a clinician-facing intervention that consisted of a form containing information about each patient's analgesic treatment preference and risk of opioid misuse. Main Outcomes and Measures: Concordance between patient preference for opioid-containing treatment (assessed before ED discharge) and receipt of an opioid prescription at ED discharge. Results: Among 1302 participants in the Life STORRIED clinical trial, 1012 patients had complete demographic and treatment preference data available and were included in this secondary analysis. Of those, 563 patients (55.6%) self-identified as female, with a mean (SD) age of 40.8 (14.1) years. A total of 455 patients (45.0%) identified as White, 384 patients (37.9%) identified as Black, and 173 patients (17.1%) identified as other races. After controlling for demographic characteristics and clinical features, Black patients had lower odds than White patients of receiving a prescription for opioid medication at ED discharge (odds ratio [OR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.65). When patients who did and did not prefer opioids were considered separately, Black patients continued to have lower odds of being discharged with a prescription for opioids compared with White patients (among those who preferred opioids: OR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.24-0.77]; among those who did not prefer opioids: OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.23-0.89]). These disparities were not eliminated in the treatment arm, in which clinicians were given additional data about their patients' treatment preferences and risk of opioid misuse. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial, Black patients received different acute pain management than White patients after patient preference was accounted for. These disparities remained after clinicians were given additional patient-level data, suggesting that a lack of patient information may not be associated with opioid prescribing disparities. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03134092.

Emergency department-based interventions affecting social determinants of health in the United States: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Social determinants of health (SDoH) have significant implications for health outcomes in the United States. Emergency departments (EDs) function as the safety nets of the American health care system, caring for many vulnerable populations. ED-based interventions to assess social risk and mitigate social needs have been reported in the literature. However, the breadth and scope of these interventions have not been evaluated. As the field of social emergency medicine (SEM) expands, a mapping and categorization of previous interventions may help shape future research. We sought to identify, summarize, and characterize ED-based interventions aimed at mitigating negative SDoH. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to identify and characterize peer-reviewed research articles that report ED-based interventions to address or impact SDoH in the United States. We designed and conducted a search in Medline, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Abstracts and, subsequently, full articles were reviewed independently by two reviewers to identify potentially relevant articles. Included articles were categorized by type of intervention and primary SDoH domain. Reported outcomes were also categorized by type and efficacy. RESULTS: A total of 10,856 abstracts were identified and reviewed, and 596 potentially relevant studies were identified. Full article review identified 135 articles for inclusion. These articles were further subdivided into three intervention types: a) provider educational intervention (18%), b) disease modification with SDoH focus (26%), and c) direct SDoH intervention (60%), with 4% including two "types." Articles were subsequently further grouped into seven SDoH domains: 1) access to care (33%), 2) discrimination/group disparities (7%), 3) exposure to violence/crime (34%), 4) food insecurity (2%), 5) housing issues/homelessness (3%), 6) language/literacy/health literacy (12%), 7) socioeconomic disparities/poverty (10%). The majority of articles reported that the intervention studied was effective for the primary outcome identified (78%). CONCLUSION: Emergency department-based interventions that address seven different SDoH domains have been reported in the peer-reviewed literature over the past 30 years, utilizing a variety of approaches including provider education and direct and indirect focus on social risk and need. Characterization and understanding of previous interventions may help identify opportunities for future interventions as well as guide a SEM research agenda.

What is the effect of a decision aid in potentially vulnerable parents? Insights from the head CT choice randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypotheses that use of the Head CT Choice decision aid would be similarly effective in all parent/patient dyads but parents with high (vs low) numeracy experience a greater increase in knowledge while those with low (vs high) health literacy experience a greater increase in trust. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a cluster randomized trial conducted at seven sites. One hundred seventy-two clinicians caring for 971 children at intermediate risk for clinically important traumatic brain injuries were randomized to shared decision making facilitated by the DA (n = 493) or to usual care (n = 478). We assessed for subgroup effects based on patient and parent characteristics, including socioeconomic status (health literacy, numeracy and income). We tested for interactions using regression models with indicators for arm assignment and study site. RESULTS: The decision aid did not increase knowledge more in parents with high numeracy (P for interaction [Pint ] = 0.14) or physician trust more in parents with low health literacy (Pint  = 0.34). The decision aid decreased decisional conflict more in non-white parents (decisional conflict scale, -8.14, 95% CI: -12.33 to -3.95; Pint  = 0.05) and increased physician trust more in socioeconomically disadvantaged parents (trust in physician scale, OR: 8.59, 95% CI: 2.35-14.83; Pint  = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the Head CT Choice decision aid resulted in less decisional conflict in non-white parents and greater physician trust in socioeconomically disadvantaged parents. Decision aids may be particularly effective in potentially vulnerable parents.

Increasing Trends in the Use of Hospital Observation Services for Older Medicare Advantage and Privately Insured Patients.

Policy and financial pressures have driven up use of observation stays for patients in traditional Medicare and the Veterans' Affairs Healthcare System. Using claims data (2004-2014) from OptumLabs™ Data Warehouse, we examined whether people in private Medicare Advantage (MA) and commercial plans experienced similar changes. We found that use of observation increased rapidly for patients in MA plans-even though MA plans were not subject to the same pressures as government-run programs. In contrast, use of observation remained constant for people in commercial plans-except for enrollees 65 and older, for whom it increased somewhat. Privately insured patients returning to the hospital after an inpatient stay were increasingly likely to be placed under observation. Our results suggest that observation is rapidly replacing inpatient admissions and readmissions for many older patients in MA and commercial plans, while younger patients continue to be admitted as inpatients at relatively constant rates.

Trends in opioid use in commercially insured and Medicare Advantage populations in 2007-16: retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe trends in the rate and daily dose of opioids used among commercial and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries from 2007 to 2016. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of administrative claims data. SETTING: National database of medical and pharmacy claims for commercially insured and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 48 million individuals with any period of insurance coverage between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2016, including commercial beneficiaries, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries aged 65 years and over, and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries under age 65 years (eligible owing to permanent disability). MAIN ENDPOINTS: Proportion of beneficiaries with any opioid prescription per quarter, average daily dose in milligram morphine equivalents (MME), and proportion of opioid use episodes that represented long term use. RESULTS: Across all years of the study, annual opioid use prevalence was 14% for commercial beneficiaries, 26% for aged Medicare beneficiaries, and 52% for disabled Medicare beneficiaries. In the commercial beneficiary group, quarterly prevalence of opioid use changed little, starting and ending the study period at 6%; the average daily dose of 17 MME remained unchanged since 2011. For aged Medicare beneficiaries, quarterly use prevalence was also relatively stable, ranging from 11% at the beginning of the study period to 14% at the end. Disabled Medicare beneficiaries had the highest rates of opioid use, the highest rate of long term use, and the largest average daily doses. In this group, both quarterly use rates (39%) and average daily dose (56 MME) were higher at the end of 2016 than the low points observed in 2007 for each endpoint (26% prevalence and 53 MME). CONCLUSIONS: Opioid use rates were high during the study period of 2007-16, with the highest rates in disabled Medicare beneficiaries versus aged Medicare beneficiaries and commercial beneficiaries. Opioid use and average daily dose have not substantially declined from their peaks, despite increased attention to opioid abuse and awareness of their risks.

Opioid Prescribing for Opioid-Naive Patients in Emergency Departments and Other Settings: Characteristics of Prescriptions and Association With Long-Term Use.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We explore the emergency department (ED) contribution to prescription opioid use for opioid-naive patients by comparing the guideline concordance of ED prescriptions with those attributed to other settings and the risk of patients' continuing long-term opioid use. METHODS: We used analysis of administrative claims data (OptumLabs Data Warehouse 2009 to 2015) of opioid-naive privately insured and Medicare Advantage (aged and disabled) beneficiaries to compare characteristics of opioid prescriptions attributed to the ED with those attributed to other settings. Concordance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines and rate of progression to long-term opioid use are reported. RESULTS: We identified 5.2 million opioid prescription fills that met inclusion criteria. Opioid prescriptions from the ED were more likely to adhere to CDC guidelines for dose, days' supply, and formulation than those attributed to non-ED settings. Disabled Medicare beneficiaries were the most likely to progress to long-term use, with 13.4% of their fills resulting in long-term use compared with 6.2% of aged Medicare and 1.8% of commercial beneficiaries' fills. Compared with patients in non-ED settings, commercial beneficiaries receiving opioid prescriptions in the ED were 46% less likely, aged Medicare patients 56% less likely, and disabled Medicare patients 58% less likely to progress to long-term opioid use. CONCLUSION: Compared with non-ED settings, opioid prescriptions provided to opioid-naive patients in the ED were more likely to align with CDC recommendations. They were shorter, written for lower daily doses, and less likely to be for long-acting formulations. Prescriptions from the ED are associated with a lower risk of progression to long-term use.

Impact of a Shared Decision Making Intervention on Health Care Utilization: A Secondary Analysis of the Chest Pain Choice Multicenter Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients at low risk for acute coronary syndrome are frequently admitted for observation and cardiac testing, resulting in substantial burden and cost to the patient and the health care system. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this investigation was to measure the effect of the Chest Pain Choice (CPC) decision aid on overall health care utilization as well as utilization of specific services both during the index emergency department (ED) visit and in the subsequent 45 days. METHODS: This was a planned secondary analysis of data from a pragmatic multicenter randomized trial of shared decision making in adults presenting to the ED with chest pain who were being considered for observation unit admission for cardiac stress testing or coronary computed tomography angiography. The trial compared an intervention group engaged in shared decision making facilitated by the CPC decision aid to a control group receiving usual care. Hospital-level billing data were used to measure utilization for the index ED visit and during the following 45 days. Patients in both groups also were asked to keep a diary recording health care utilization over the same 45-day period. Outcomes assessed included length of time in the ED and observation, ED visits, office visits, hospitalizations, testing, imaging, and procedures. RESULTS: Of the 898 patients included in the original trial, we were able to contact 834 (92.9%) patients for 45-day health care diary review. There was no difference in patient-reported health care utilization between the study arms. Hospital-level billing data were obtained for all 898 (100%) patients. During the initial ED visit the length of stay (LOS) was similar, and there was no difference in the frequency of observation unit admission between study arms. However, the mean observation unit LOS was 95 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI] = 40.8-149.8) shorter in the CPC arm and the mean number of tests was lower in the CPC arm (decrease in 19.4 imaging studies per 100 patients, 95% CI = 15.5-23.3). When evaluating the entire encounter and follow-up period, the intervention arm underwent fewer tests (decrease in 125.6 tests per 100 patients, 95% CI = 29.3-221.6). More specifically, there were fewer advanced cardiac imaging tests completed (25.8 fewer per 100 patients, 95% CI = 3.74-47.9) in the intervention arm. CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision making in low-risk chest pain can lead to decreased diagnostic testing without worsening outcomes measured over 45 days.

Funding Research in Emergency Department Shared Decision Making: A Summary of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference Panel Discussion.

As part of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference, "Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy-relevant Patient-centered Research Agenda," a panel of representatives from the Office of Emergency Care Research, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the American Heart Association, the John A. Hartford Foundation, and the Emergency Care Coordination Center were assembled to discuss funding opportunities for future research in this field. This article summarizes their discussion of funding priorities and examples of successfully funded projects related to shared decision making in emergency medicine.

The 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference, "Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy-relevant Patient-centered Research Agenda" Diagnostic Testing Breakout Session Report.

Diagnostic testing is an integral component of patient evaluation in the emergency department (ED). Emergency clinicians frequently use diagnostic testing to more confidently exclude "worst-case" diagnoses rather than to determine the most likely etiology for a presenting complaint. Increased utilization of diagnostic testing has not been associated with reductions in disease-related mortality but has led to increased overall healthcare costs and other unintended consequences (e.g., incidental findings requiring further workup, unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiation or potentially nephrotoxic contrast). Shared decision making (SDM) presents an opportunity for clinicians to discuss the benefits and harms associated with diagnostic testing with patients to more closely tailor testing to patient risk. This article introduces the challenges and opportunities associated with incorporating SDM into emergency care by summarizing the conclusions of the diagnostic testing group at the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference on SDM. Three primary domains emerged: 1) characteristics of a condition or test appropriate for SDM, 2) critical elements of and potential barriers to SDM discussions on diagnostic testing, and 3) financial aspects of SDM applied to diagnostic testing. The most critical research questions to improve engagement of patients in their acute care diagnostic decisions were determined by consensus.

Comparative Trends and Downstream Outcomes of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography and Cardiac Stress Testing in Emergency Department Patients With Chest Pain: An Administrative Claims Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Coronary computerized tomography angiography (CCTA) is a rapidly emerging technology for the evaluation of chest pain in the emergency department (ED). We assessed trends in CCTA use and compared downstream healthcare utilization between CCTA and cardiac stress testing modalities. METHODS: Using administrative claims data (Optum Labs Data Warehouse) from over 100 million geographically diverse privately insured and Medicare Advantage enrollees across the United States, we identified 2,047,799 ED patients from January 2006 to December 2013 who presented with chest pain and had a CCTA or cardiac stress test within 72 hours. Cohorts were established based on CCTA or functional stress testing (myocardial perfusion scintigraphy [MPS], stress echocardiogram [SE], or treadmill exercise electrocardiogram [TMET]) performed within 72 hours of the ED visit. We tracked subsequent invasive cardiac procedures (invasive coronary angiography [ICA], percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], and coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]), repeat noninvasive testing, return ED visits, hospitalization, and the rate of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) within 30 days. We used propensity-score matching to adjust for coronary artery disease (CAD) risk factors, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity index, and baseline differences between patients selected for CCTA or cardiac stress testing. Logistic regression was used to measure adjusted associations between testing modality and outcomes. RESULTS: During the study period, CCTA use increased from 0.8% to 4.5% of all cardiac testing within 72 hours, a change of 434% (p-value for trend < 0.001), while rates of other cardiac stress testing modalities decreased (-22% for TMET [p < 0.001]; -11% for SE [p = 0.11]; -6% for MPS [p = 0.04]. After matching, there was no difference in the 30-day rate of AMI between testing modalities. Compared to MPS, CCTA was associated with higher rates of PCI (odds ratio [OR] = 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.04 to 1.51), and CABG (OR = 1.47; 95% CI = 1.03 to 2.13). Compared to SE and treadmill stress testing, CCTA was associated with more invasive procedures, hospitalizations, return ED visits, and repeat noninvasive testing. CONCLUSIONS: CCTA use increased fourfold during the study period and was associated with higher rates of PCI, CABG, repeat noninvasive testing, hospitalization, and return ED visits. The authors have no relevant financial information or potential conflicts to disclose.

Pilot Study of Kano "Attractive Quality" Techniques to Identify Change in Emergency Department Patient Experience.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We describe the use of the Kano Attractive Quality analytic tool to improve an identified patient experience gap in perceived compassion by emergency department (ED) providers. METHODS: In phase 1, point-of-service surveying assessed baseline patient perception of ED provider compassion. Phase 2 deployed Kano surveys to predict the effect of 4 proposed interventions on patient perception. Finally, phase 3 compared patients receiving standard care versus the Kano-identified intervention to assess the actual effect on patient experience. RESULTS: In phase 1, 193 of 200 surveys (97%) were completed, showing a baseline median score of 4 out of 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 3 to 5), with top box percentage of 33% for patients' perception of receiving compassionate care. In phase 2, 158 of 180 surveys (88%) using Kano-formatted questions were completed, and the data predicted that increasing shared decisionmaking would cause the greatest improvement in the patient experience. Finally, in phase 3, 45 of 49 surveys (92%) were returned and demonstrated a significant improvement in perceived concern and sensitivity, 5 (IQR 5 to 5) versus 4 (IQR 3 to 5) with a difference of 1 (95% CI 0.1-1.9) and a top box rating of 79% versus 35% with a difference of 44% (95% CI 12-66) by patients who received dedicated shared decisionmaking interventions versus those receiving standard of care. CONCLUSION: Kano analysis is likely predictive of change in patient experience. Kano methods may prove as useful in changing management of the health care industry as it has been in other industries.

Patient-centered Outcomes Research in Emergency Care: Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Directions.

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) was established by Congress in 2010 to promote the conduct of research that could better inform patients in making decisions that reflect their desired health outcomes. PCORI has established five national priorities for research around which specific funding opportunities are issued: 1) assessment of prevention, diagnosis, and treatment options; 2) improving healthcare systems; 3) communication and dissemination research; 4) addressing disparities; and 5) improving methods for conducting patient-centered outcomes research. To date, implementation of patient-centered research in the emergency care setting has been limited, in part because of perceived challenges in meeting PCORI priorities such as the need to focus on a specific disease state or to have planned follow up. We suggest that these same factors that have been seen as challenges to performing patient-centered research within the emergency setting are also potential strengths to be leveraged to conduct PCORI research. This paper explores factors unique to patient-centered emergency care research and highlights specific areas of potential alignment within each PCORI priority.

An observational study of emergency department utilization among enrollees of Minnesota Health Care Programs: financial and non-financial barriers have different associations.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) use is costly, and especially frequent among publicly insured populations in the US, who also disproportionately encounter financial (cost/coverage-related) and non-financial/practical barriers to care. The present study examines the distinct associations financial and non-financial barriers to care have with patterns of ED use among a publicly insured population. METHODS: This observational study uses linked administrative-survey data for enrollees of Minnesota Health Care Programs to examine patterns in ED use-specifically, enrollee self-report of the ED as usual source of care, and past-year count of 0, 1, or 2+ ED visits from administrative data. Main independent variables included a count of seven enrollee-reported financial concerns about healthcare costs and coverage, and a count of seven enrollee-reported non-financial, practical barriers to access (e.g., limited office hours, problems with childcare). Covariates included health, health care, and demographic measures. RESULTS: In multivariate regression models, only financial concerns were positively associated with reporting ED as usual source of care, but only non-financial barriers were significantly associated with greater ED visits. Regression-adjusted values indicated notable differences in ED visits by number of non-financial barriers: zero non-financial barriers meant an adjusted 78% chance of having zero ED visits (95% C.I.: 70.5%-85.5%), 15.9% chance of 1(95% C.I.: 10.4%-21.3%), and 6.2% chance (95% C.I.: 3.5%-8.8%) of 2+ visits, whereas having all seven non-financial barriers meant a 48.2% adjusted chance of zero visits (95% C.I.: 30.9%-65.6%), 31.8% chance of 1 visit (95% C.I.: 24.2%-39.5%), and 20% chance (95% C.I.: 8.4%-31.6%) of 2+ visits. CONCLUSIONS: Financial barriers were associated with identifying the ED as one's usual source of care but non-financial barriers were associated with actual ED visits. Outreach/literacy efforts may help reduce reliance on/perception of ED as usual source of care, whereas improved targeting/availability of covered services may help curb frequent actual visits, among publicly insured individuals.

Transforming the emergency department observation unit: a look into the future.

Many institutions have developed outpatient observation units as an alternative to short-stay inpatient admissions. In this article, we highlight evidence to support the efficacy of EDOU care for chest pain and identify areas in which additional research is needed. Evidence-based protocols and collaborative approaches to care have potential to achieve similar clinical and improved economic outcomes compared with hospital admission. The potential for the EDOU to provide the right care for the right patient at the right time is only beginning to be realized, with significant advances in health care delivery anticipated in the near future.

The Chest Pain Choice trial: a pilot randomized trial of a decision aid for patients with chest pain in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Chest pain is a common presenting complaint in the emergency department (ED). Despite the frequency with which clinicians evaluate patients with chest pain, accurately determining the risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and sharing risk information with patients is challenging. The aims of this study are (1) to develop a decision aid (CHEST PAIN CHOICE) that communicates the short-term risk of ACS and (2) to evaluate the impact of the decision aid on patient participation in decision-making and resource use. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a protocol for a parallel, 2-arm randomized trial to compare an intervention group receiving CHEST PAIN CHOICE to a control group receiving usual ED care. Adults presenting to the Saint Mary's Hospital ED in Rochester, MN USA with a primary complaint of chest pain who are being considered for admission for prolonged ED observation in a specialized unit and urgent cardiac stress testing will be eligible for enrollment. We will measure the effect of CHEST PAIN CHOICE on six outcomes: (1) patient knowledge regarding their short-term risk for ACS and the risks of radiation exposure; (2) quality of the decision making process; (3) patient and clinician acceptability and satisfaction with the decision aid; (4) the proportion of patients who decided to undergo observation unit admission and urgent cardiac stress testing; (5) economic costs and healthcare utilization; and (6) the rate of delayed or missed ACS. To capture these outcomes, we will administer patient and clinician surveys after each visit, obtain video recordings of the clinical encounters, and conduct 30-day phone follow-up. DISCUSSION: This pilot randomized trial will develop and evaluate a decision aid for use in ED chest pain patients at low risk for ACS and provide a preliminary estimate of its effect on patient participation in decision-making and resource use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT01077037.

Derivation of a clinical decision rule for chest radiography in emergency department patients with chest pain and possible acute coronary syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: We derived a clinical decision rule to determine which emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain and possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS) require chest radiography. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients over 24 years of age with a primary complaint of chest pain and possible ACS over a 6 month period. Emergency physicians completed standardized clinical assessments and ordered chest radiographs as appropriate. Two blinded investigators independently classified chest radiographs as "normal," "abnormal not requiring intervention" and "abnormal requiring intervention," based on review of the radiology report and the medical record. The primary outcome was abnormality of chest radiographs requiring acute intervention. Analyses included interrater reliability assessment (with kappa statistics), univariate analyses and recursive partitioning. RESULTS: We enrolled 529 patients during the study period between Jul. 1, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2007. Patients had a mean age of 59.9 years, 60.3% were male, 4.0% had a history of congestive heart failure and 21.9% had a history of acute myocardial infarction. Only 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1%-3.8%) of patients had radiographic abnormality of the chest requiring acute intervention. The kappa statistic for chest radiograph classification was 0.81 (95% CI 0.66-0.95). We derived the following rule: patients can forgo chest radiography if they have no history of congestive heart failure, no history of smoking and no abnormalities on lung auscultation. The rule was 100% sensitive (95% CI 32.0%-40.4%) and 36.1% specific (95% CI 32.0%-40.4%). CONCLUSION: This rule has potential to reduce health care costs and enhance ED patient flow. It requires validation in an independent patient population before introduction into clinical practice.

Assessment of a three-phase model of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with ventricular fibrillation.

AIM: Cardiac arrest with ventricular fibrillation (VF) has been divided into three phases in which phase-specific therapy may improve outcome. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between call-to-shock time, bystander CPR (BCPR), and cardiac arrest outcomes. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of prospectively-acquired data from witnessed VF out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA), patients were classified as phases 1, 2, or 3 based on call-to-shock time (<5, 5-8, and >8 min) and further stratified based on performance of BCPR. Groups were compared with regard to survival, neurological outcome, and restoration of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) with defibrillation only (no ALS interventions to achieve sustained ROSC). RESULTS: Survival, neurologically intact survival, and ROSC with defibrillation were different between phases 1 and 2 (p=0.014 and p=0.005, p<0.01) but not between phases 2 and 3. Patients were further classified as having received BCPR (N=111) or no BCPR (N=107). Neurologically intact survival with and without BCPR, respectively, was 61% versus 72% (phase 1), 44% versus 41% (phase 2), and 42% versus 29% (phase 3). ROSC with defibrillation only with and without BCPR, respectively, was 64% versus 56% (phase 1), 37.0% versus 29% (phase 2), and 33% versus 8% (phase 3). ROSC with defibrillation alone was statistically higher in univariate analysis in phase 3 with BCPR (p=0.033) but not in multivariate analysis (p=0.068). CONCLUSIONS: BCPR did not significantly improve survival in any phase of OHCA, though there was a trend toward increased neurologically intact survival and increased ROSC with defibrillation alone in phase 3.