International, multicenter evaluation of a new D-dimer assay for the exclusion of venous thromboembolism using standard and age-adjusted cut-offs.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to determine the test characteristics of an automated INNOVANCE D-dimer assay for the exclusion of pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in emergency department (ED) patients using standard and age-adjusted cut-offs. METHODS: Cross-sectional, international, multicenter study of consecutive patients with suspected DVT or PE in 24 centers (18 USA, 6 Europe). Evaluated patients had low or intermediate Wells PE or DVT scores. For the standard cut-off, a D-dimer result <500 ng/ml was negative. For the age adjusted cut-off, we used the formula: Age (years) ∗ 10. The diagnostic standard was imaging demonstrating PE or DVT within 3 months. We calculated test characteristics using standard methods. We also explored modifications of the age adjustment multiplier. RESULTS: We included 3837 patients and excluded 251. The mean age of patients evaluated for PE (n = 1834) was 48 ±â€¯16 years, with 676 (37%) male, and 1081 (59%) white. The mean age of evaluated for DVT (n = 1752) was 53 ±â€¯16 years, with 710 (41%) male, and 1172 (67%) white. D-dimer test characteristics for PE were: sensitivity 98.0%, specificity 55.4%, negative predictive value (NPV) 99.8%, positive predictive value (PPV) 11.4%, and for DVT were: sensitivity 92.0%, specificity 44.8%, NPV 98.8%, PPV 10.3%. Age adjustment increased specificity (59.6% [PE], 51.1% [DVT]), but increasing the age-adjustment multiplier decreased sensitivity without increasing specificity. CONCLUSIONS: INNOVANCE D-dimer is highly sensitive and can exclude PE and DVT in ED patients with low- and intermediate- pre-test probability. Age-adjustment increases specificity, without increasing false negatives.

Health Literacy in Patients Seeking Orthopaedic Care: Results of the Literacy in Musculoskeletal Problems (LIMP) Project.

BACKGROUND: Health literacy is the most important predictor of an individual's health status, with more frequent hospitalizations, worse control of chronic conditions, and suboptimal treatment outcomes associated with limited literacy. Despite this, little is known about musculoskeletal health literacy. As such, this study utilized a musculoskeletal specific literacy survey (the LiMP questionnaire) to evaluate the level of comprehension in patients presenting to the emergency department with musculoskeletal complaints, with an emphasis on their understanding of anatomy, terminology, diagnosis and treatment of musculoskeletal conditions. The relationship between musculoskeletal specific and general health literacy was also assessed, in addition to the risk factors for limited musculoskeletal comprehension. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, each of the 248 participants completed a demographic survey, the LiMP questionnaire, and the Newest Vital Sign (NVS), a general health literacy assessment tool. A x(2) analysis was used to compare results from the LiMP questionnaire and NVS, and to evaluate the relationship between musculoskeletal health literacy and demographic parameters. RESULTS: The mean LiMP score was 4.68 ± 1.78 out of a possible nine points. Questions regarding musculoskeletal conditions were answered correctly by 47.4% of respondents. Questions regarding diagnosis and treatment were answered correctly by 31.2% of respondents. Questions regarding anatomy and terminology were answered correctly by 65.3% of respondents. Limited musculoskeletal literacy, defined as LiMP questionnaire scores of <6, was observed in 69% of subjects. Inadequate general health literacy, defined as NVS scores <4, was observed in 48% of subjects. This difference was statistically significant (p<0.001). Those who identified themselves as Caucasian and having an education level of ≥ college were significantly more likely to have adequate musculoskeletal literacy (p=0.001, p<0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of limited musculoskeletal literacy is greater than that of limited general health literacy, with minorities and those with lower education levels most at risk. These findings are consistent with other disease and specialty specific literacy studies. Although such insight will assist providers in accurately targeting education and outreach campaigns, it remains imperative that additional research be performed to determine if limited literacy correlates with increased complications and worse outcomes in those with musculoskeletal conditions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV. The authors have no relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest with regard to this manuscript. No funding was received.

Physician and patient factors influencing the treatment of low back pain.

Previous retrospective studies have suggested that patient demographics may influence analgesic administration. These studies have not taken physicians' impression of patient pain into account. This prospective study investigates the influence of (i) physician impression of the degree of pain and (ii) patient demographics on the use of analgesic. A convenience sample of adults with non-traumatic lower back pain was studied. Possible predictors of analgesic administration included physician pain scores (assessed by visual analogue scale), patient ethnicity, gender, age, and insurance. These variables were tested individually and then using logistic regression. For the total of 91 patients enrolled, only physician pain scale was found to be associated with analgesic use. Median scores were 68 mm (interquartile range = 62-80 mm) for those receiving treatment versus 48 mm (interquartile range = 30-58 mm) for those who did not (P < 0.001). This study therefore suggests that physician impression of patient pain rather than patient demographics influences analgesic use.

Evaluation of an emergency department educational campaign for recognition of suicidal patients.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the impact of a simple emergency department (ED)-based educational intervention designed to assist ED providers in detecting occult suicidal behavior in patients who present with complaints that are not related to behavioral health. METHODS: Staff from 5 ED sites participated in the study. Four ED staff members were exposed to a poster and clinical guide for the recognition and management of suicidal patients. Staff members in 1 ED were not exposed to training material and served as a comparator group. RESULTS: At baseline, only 36% of providers reported that they had sufficient training in how to assess level of suicide risk in patients. Greater than two thirds of providers agreed that additional training would be helpful in assessing the level of patient suicide risk. More than half of respondents who were exposed to the intervention (51.6%) endorsed increased knowledge of suicide risk during the study period, while 41% indicated that the intervention resulted in improved skills in managing suicidal patients. CONCLUSION: This brief, free intervention appeared to have a beneficial impact on providers' perceptions of how well suicidality was recognized and managed in the ED.

Socioeconomic and health status differences between depressed and nondepressed ED elders.

The objective of the study was to describe differences in demographics, medical conditions, and social situation between depressed and nondepressed elderly emergency department (ED) patients. We studied a prospective convenience sample of English-speaking ED patients greater-than-or-equal 65 years, without altered mental status, obvious dementia or delirium, participating in a depression screening study during an ED visit for a nonpsychiatric complaint. Demographics were collected. Research personnel administered the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), the Folstein Mini-Mental State Examination and a health questionnaire. A total of 103 subjects were enrolled. GDS identified 33 patients (32%) with DEP. DEP patients were more likely to report the following: lower income, lower education level, more medical conditions, less independence, assisted living, and poorer overall health than ND patients. A third of these elderly ED patients report symptoms consistent with depression. There are significant differences in socioeconomic characteristics, health status, and functional ability. Future depression studies should focus on elders with these characteristics.

Validation of a brief screening tool to detect depression in elderly ED patients.

Although depression is the most common psychiatric disorder in the elderly, it is often unrecognized by physicians. The objective of the study was to assess the utility of a 3-question screening instrument (ED-DSI) to detect depression among elderly emergency department (ED) patients. We used a prospective convenience sample of English-speaking ED patients >or=65yr. Patients were excluded for being too ill to participate, having obvious dementia, or acute changes in mentation. A physician administered the ED-DSI. Trained research personnel blinded to ED-DSI answers then administered the 30 question Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS). The ED-DSI was considered positive if the patient answered yes to one or more questions and subjects were considered depressed when the GDS score was >or=10. ED-DSI was compared to GDS using contingency tables. A total of 103 subjects were enrolled. Average age was 75 years and subjects were predominately female (66%) and white (85%). GDS identified 33 patients (32%) as depressed. Of these, 26 were correctly identified by ED-DSI giving an ED-DSI sensitivity of 79% (95%CI (65%, 93%)) specificity of 66% (95%CI (54%, 78%)) and a negative predictive value of 87% (95%CI (79%, 95%)). The 3-question ED-DSI is a useful tool to detect depression in this population of ED patients.