RESUMO
STUDY OBJECTIVE: The SafeSDH Tool was derived to identify patients with isolated (no other type of intracranial hemorrhage) subdural hematoma who are at very low risk of neurologic deterioration, neurosurgical intervention, or death. Patients are low risk by the tool if they have none of the following: use of anticoagulant or nonaspirin antiplatelet agent, Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) <14, more than 1 discrete hematoma, hematoma thickness >5 mm, or midline shift. We attempted to externally validate the SafeSDH Tool. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients aged ≥16 with a GCS ≥13 and isolated subdural hematoma who presented to 1 of 6 academic and community hospitals from 2005 to 2018. The primary outcome, a composite of neurologic deterioration (seizure, altered mental status, or symptoms requiring repeat imaging), neurosurgical intervention, discharge on hospice, and death, was abstracted from discharge summaries. Hematoma thickness, number of hematomas, and midline shift were abstracted from head imaging reports. Anticoagulant use, antiplatelet use, and GCS were gathered from the admission record. RESULTS: The validation data set included 753 patients with isolated subdural hematoma. Mortality during the index admission was 2.1%; 26% of patients underwent neurosurgical intervention. For the composite outcome, sensitivity was 99% (95% confidence interval [CI] 97 to 100), and specificity was 31% (95% CI 27 to 35). The tool identified 162 (21.5%) patients as low risk. Negative likelihood ratio was 0.03 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.11). CONCLUSION: The SafeSDH Tool identified patients with isolated subdural hematoma who are at low risk for poor outcomes with high sensitivity. With prospective validation, these low-risk patients could be safe for management in less intensive settings.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Persons living with dementia (PLWD) experience frequent and costly emergency department (ED) visits, with poor outcomes attributed to suboptimal care and postdischarge care transitions. Yet, patient-centered data on ED care experiences and postdischarge needs are lacking. The objective of this study was to examine the facilitators and barriers to successful ED care and care transitions after discharge, according to PLWD and their caregivers. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study involving ED patients ages 65 and older with confirmed or suspected dementia and their caregivers. The semistructured interview protocol followed the National Quality Forum's ED Transitions of Care Framework and addressed ED care, care transitions, and outpatient follow-up care. Interviews were conducted during an ED visit at an urban, academic ED. Traditional thematic analysis was used to identify themes. RESULTS: We interviewed 11 patients and 19 caregivers. Caregivers were more forthcoming than patients about facilitators and challenges experienced. Characteristics of the patients' condition (e.g., resistance to care, forgetfulness), the availability of family resources (e.g., caregiver availability, primary care access), and system-level factors (e.g., availability of timely appointments, hospital policies tailored to persons with dementia) served as facilitators and barriers to successful care. Some resources that would ameliorate care transition barriers could be easily provided in the ED, for example, offering clear discharge instructions and care coordination services and improving patient communication regarding disposition timeline. Other interventions would require investment from other parts of the health care system (e.g., respite for caregivers, broader insurance coverage). CONCLUSIONS: ED care and care transitions for PLWD are suboptimal, and patient-level factors may exacerbate existing system-level deficiencies. Insight from patients and their caregivers may inform the development of ED interventions to design specialized care for this patient population. This qualitative study also demonstrated the feasibility of conducting ED-based studies on PLWD during their ED visit.
Assuntos
Cuidadores , Demência , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Pesquisa Qualitativa , Humanos , Masculino , Cuidadores/psicologia , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Idoso , Demência/terapia , Demência/enfermagem , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Alta do Paciente , Continuidade da Assistência ao Paciente , Entrevistas como Assunto , Assistência ao Convalescente , Visitas ao Pronto SocorroRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Low back pain is a common problem and a substantial source of morbidity and disability worldwide. Patients frequently visit the emergency department (ED) for low back pain, but many experience persistent symptoms at 3 months despite frequent receipt of opioids. Although physical therapy interventions have been demonstrated to improve patient functioning in the outpatient setting, no randomised trial has yet to evaluate physical therapy in the ED setting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a single-centre cluster-randomised trial of an embedded ED physical therapy intervention for acute low back pain. We used a covariate-constrained approach to randomise individual physicians (clusters) at an urban academic ED in Chicago, Illinois, USA, to receive, or not receive, an embedded physical therapist on their primary treatment team to evaluate all patients with low back pain. We will then enrol individual ED patients with acute low back pain and allocate them to the embedded physical therapy or usual care study arms, depending on the randomisation assignment of their treating physician. We will follow patients to a primary endpoint of 3 months and compare a primary outcome of change in PROMIS-Pain Interference score and secondary outcomes of change in modified Oswestry Disability Index score and patient-reported opioid use. Our primary approach will be a modified intention-to-treat analysis, whereby all participants who complete at least one follow-up data time point will be included in analyses, regardless of their or their physicians' adherence to their assigned study arm. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial is funded by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS027426) and was approved by the Northwestern University Institutional Review Board. All physician and patient participants will give written informed consent to study participation. Trial results will be submitted for presentation at scientific meetings and for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04921449).