Predictors of Acute Atrial Fibrillation and Flutter Hospitalization across 7 U.S. Emergency Departments: A Prospective Study.

INTRODUCTION: International rates of hospitalization for atrial fibrillation and flutter (AFF) from the emergency department (ED) vary widely without clear evidence to guide the identification of high-risk patients requiring inpatient management. We sought to determine (1) variation in hospital admission and (2) modifiable factors associated with hospitalization of AFF patients within a U.S. integrated health system. METHODS: This multicenter prospective observational study of health plan members with symptomatic AFF was conducted using convenience sampling in 7 urban community EDs from 05/2011 to 08/2012. Prospective data collection included presenting symptoms, characteristics of atrial dysrhythmia, ED physician impression of hemodynamic instability, comorbid diagnoses, ED management, and ED discharge rhythm. All centers had full-time on-call cardiology consultation available. Additional variables were extracted from the electronic health record. We identified factors associated with hospitalization and included predictors in a multivariate Poisson Generalized Estimating Equations regression model to estimate adjusted relative risks while accounting for clustering by physician. RESULTS: Among 1,942 eligible AFF patients, 1,074 (55.3%) were discharged home and 868 (44.7%) were hospitalized. Hospitalization rates ranged from 37.4% to 60.4% across medical centers. After adjustment, modifiable factors associated with increased hospital admission from the ED included non-sinus rhythm at ED discharge, no attempted cardioversion, and heart rate reduction. DISCUSSION: Within an integrated health system, we found significant variation in AFF hospitalization rates and identified several modifiable factors associated with hospital admission. Standardizing treatment goals that specifically address best practices for ED rate reduction and rhythm control may reduce hospitalizations.

Graded Coronary Risk Stratification for Emergency Department Patients With Chest Pain: A Controlled Cohort Study.

Background Resource utilization among emergency department (ED) patients with possible coronary chest pain is highly variable. Methods and Results Controlled cohort study amongst 21 EDs of an integrated healthcare system examining the implementation of a graded coronary risk stratification algorithm (RISTRA-ACS [risk stratification for acute coronary syndrome]). Thirteen EDs had access to RISTRA-ACS within the electronic health record (RISTRA sites) beginning in month 24 of a 48-month study period (January 2016 to December 2019); the remaining 8 EDs served as contemporaneous controls. Study participants had a chief complaint of chest pain and serum troponin measurement in the ED. The primary outcome was index visit resource utilization (observation unit or hospital admission, or 7-day objective cardiac testing). Secondary outcomes were 30-day objective cardiac testing, 60-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and 60-day MACE-CR (MACE excluding coronary revascularization). Difference-in-differences analyses controlled for secular trends with stratification by estimated risk and adjustment for risk factors, ED physician and facility. A total of 154 914 encounters were included. Relative to control sites, 30-day objective cardiac testing decreased at RISTRA sites among patients with low (≤2%) estimated 60-day MACE risk (-2.5%, 95% CI -3.7 to -1.2%, P<0.001) and increased among patients with non-low (>2%) estimated risk (+2.8%, 95% CI +0.6 to +4.9%, P=0.014), without significant overall change (-1.0%, 95% CI -2.1 to 0.1%, P=0.079). There were no statistically significant differences in index visit resource utilization, 60-day MACE or 60-day MACE-CR. Conclusions Implementation of RISTRA-ACS was associated with better allocation of 30-day objective cardiac testing and no change in index visit resource utilization or 60-day MACE. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03286179.

Prospective Validation and Comparative Analysis of Coronary Risk Stratification Strategies Among Emergency Department Patients With Chest Pain.

Background Coronary risk stratification is recommended for emergency department patients with chest pain. Many protocols are designed as "rule-out" binary classification strategies, while others use graded-risk stratification. The comparative performance of competing approaches at varying levels of risk tolerance has not been widely reported. Methods and Results This is a prospective cohort study of adult patients with chest pain presenting between January 2018 and December 2019 to 13 medical center emergency departments within an integrated healthcare delivery system. Using an electronic clinical decision support interface, we externally validated and assessed the net benefit (at varying risk thresholds) of several coronary risk scores (History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin [HEART] score, HEART pathway, Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Score Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol), troponin-only strategies (fourth-generation assay), unstructured physician gestalt, and a novel risk algorithm (RISTRA-ACS). The primary outcome was 60-day major adverse cardiac event defined as myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, coronary revascularization, or all-cause mortality. There were 13 192 patient encounters included with a 60-day major adverse cardiac event incidence of 3.7%. RISTRA-ACS and HEART pathway had the lowest negative likelihood ratios (0.06, 95% CI, 0.03-0.10 and 0.07, 95% CI, 0.04-0.11, respectively) and the greatest net benefit across a range of low-risk thresholds. RISTRA-ACS demonstrated the highest discrimination for 60-day major adverse cardiac event (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.92, 95% CI, 0.91-0.94, P<0.0001). Conclusions RISTRA-ACS and HEART pathway were the optimal rule-out approaches, while RISTRA-ACS was the best-performing graded-risk approach. RISTRA-ACS offers promise as a versatile single approach to emergency department coronary risk stratification. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03286179.

Automated Retrospective Calculation of the EDACS and HEART Scores in a Multicenter Prospective Cohort of Emergency Department Chest Pain Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Coronary risk scores are commonly applied to emergency department patients with undifferentiated chest pain. Two prominent risk score-based protocols are the Emergency Department Assessment of Chest pain Score Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol (EDACS-ADP) and the History, ECG, Age, Risk factors, and Troponin (HEART) pathway. Since prospective documentation of these risk determinations can be challenging to obtain, quality improvement projects could benefit from automated retrospective risk score classification methodologies. METHODS: EDACS-ADP and HEART pathway data elements were prospectively collected using a Web-based electronic clinical decision support (eCDS) tool over a 24-month period (2018-2019) among patients presenting with chest pain to 13 EDs within an integrated health system. Data elements were also extracted and processed electronically (retrospectively) from the electronic health record (EHR) for the same patients. The primary outcome was agreement between the prospective/eCDS and retrospective/EHR data sets on dichotomous risk protocol classification, as assessed by kappa statistics (ĸ). RESULTS: There were 12,110 eligible eCDS uses during the study period, of which 66 and 47% were low-risk encounters by EDACS-ADP and HEART pathway, respectively. Agreement on low-risk status was acceptable for EDACS-ADP (ĸ = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72 to 0.75) and HEART pathway (ĸ = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.68 to 0.70) and for the continuous scores (interclass correlation coefficients = 0.87 and 0.84 for EDACS and HEART, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Automated retrospective determination of low risk status by either the EDACS-ADP or the HEART pathway provides acceptable agreement compared to prospective score calculations, providing a feasible risk adjustment option for use in large data set analyses.

Increasing Safe Outpatient Management of Emergency Department Patients With Pulmonary Embolism: A Controlled Pragmatic Trial.

Background: Many low-risk patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) in the emergency department (ED) are eligible for outpatient care but are hospitalized nonetheless. One impediment to home discharge is the difficulty of identifying which patients can safely forgo hospitalization. Objective: To evaluate the effect of an integrated electronic clinical decision support system (CDSS) to facilitate risk stratification and decision making at the site of care for patients with acute PE. Design: Controlled pragmatic trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03601676). Setting: All 21 community EDs of an integrated health care delivery system (Kaiser Permanente Northern California). Patients: Adult ED patients with acute PE. Intervention: Ten intervention sites selected by convenience received a multidimensional technology and education intervention at month 9 of a 16-month study period (January 2014 to April 2015); the remaining 11 sites served as concurrent controls. Measurements: The primary outcome was discharge to home from either the ED or a short-term (<24-hour) outpatient observation unit based in the ED. Adverse outcomes included return visits for PE-related symptoms within 5 days and recurrent venous thromboembolism, major hemorrhage, and all-cause mortality within 30 days. A difference-in-differences approach was used to compare pre-post changes at intervention versus control sites, with adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics. Results: Among 881 eligible patients diagnosed with PE at intervention sites and 822 at control sites, adjusted home discharge increased at intervention sites (17.4% pre- to 28.0% postintervention) without a concurrent increase at control sites (15.1% pre- and 14.5% postintervention). The difference-in-differences comparison was 11.3 percentage points (95% CI, 3.0 to 19.5 percentage points; P = 0.007). No increases were seen in 5-day return visits related to PE or in 30-day major adverse outcomes associated with CDSS implementation. Limitation: Lack of random allocation. Conclusion: Implementation and structured promotion of a CDSS to aid physicians in site-of-care decision making for ED patients with acute PE safely increased outpatient management. Primary Funding Source: Garfield Memorial National Research Fund and The Permanente Medical Group Delivery Science and Physician Researcher Programs.

Implementation of Computerized Physician Order Entry Is Associated With Increased Thrombolytic Administration for Emergency Department Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Electronic health record systems with computerized physician order entry and condition-specific order sets are intended to standardize patient management and minimize errors of omission. However, the effect of these systems on disease-specific process measures and patient outcomes is not well established. We seek to evaluate the effect of computerized physician order entry electronic health record implementation on process measures and short-term health outcomes for patients hospitalized with acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: We conducted a quasi-experimental cohort study of patients hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke with concurrent controls that took advantage of the staggered implementation of a comprehensive computerized physician order entry electronic health record across 16 medical centers within an integrated health care delivery system from 2007 to 2012. The study population included all patients admitted to the hospital from the emergency department (ED) for acute ischemic stroke, with an initial neuroimaging study within 2.5 hours of ED arrival. We evaluated the association between the availability of a computerized physician order entry electronic health record and the rates of ED intravenous tissue plasminogen activator administration, hospital-acquired pneumonia, and inhospital and 90-day mortality, using doubly robust estimation models to adjust for demographics, comorbidities, secular trends, and concurrent primary stroke center certification status at each center. RESULTS: Of 10,081 eligible patients, 6,686 (66.3%) were treated in centers after the computerized physician order entry electronic health record had been implemented. Computerized physician order entry was associated with significantly higher rates of intravenous tissue plasminogen activator administration (rate difference 3.4%; 95% confidence interval 0.8% to 6.0%) but not with significant rate differences in pneumonia or mortality. CONCLUSION: For patients hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke, computerized physician order entry use was associated with increased use of intravenous tissue plasminogen activator.

Emergency physician perspectives on central venous catheterization in the emergency department: a survey-based study.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to assess clinician experience, training, and attitudes toward central venous catheterization (CVC) in adult emergency department (ED) patients in a health system promoting increased utilization of CVC for severely septic ED patients. METHODS: The authors surveyed all emergency physicians (EPs) within a 21-hospital integrated health care delivery system that had recently instituted a modified Rivers protocol for providing early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) to patients with severe sepsis or septic shock, including CVC if indicated. This initiative was accompanied by a structured, but optional, systemwide hands-on training for EPs in real-time ultrasound-guided CVC (US CVC). EPs' responses to questions regarding self-reported experience with CVC in the ED are reported. Data included frequency of CVC (by type) and US CVC training opportunities: both during and after residency and informal ("on-the-job training involving actual ED patients under the oversight of someone more experienced than yourself") and formal ("off-the-job training not involving actual ED patients"). The survey also asked respondents to report their comfort levels with different types of CVC as well as their agreement with possible barriers (philosophical, time-related, equipment-related, and complication-related) to CVC in the ED. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression was used to identify provider characteristics and responses associated with higher yearly CVC volumes. RESULTS: The survey response rate among eligible participants was 365 of 465 (78%). Overall, 154 of 365 (42%) respondents reported performing 11 or more CVCs a year, while 46 of 365 (13%) reported doing two or fewer. Concerning CVC techniques, 271 of 358 (76%) of respondents reported being comfortable with the internal jugular approach with US guidance, compared to 200 of 345 (58%) with the subclavian approach without US. Training rates were reported as 1) in residency, formal 167 of 358 (47%) and informal 189 of 364 (52%); and 2) postresidency, formal 236 of 359 (66%) and informal 260 of 365 (71%). The most commonly self-reported barriers to CVC were procedural time (56%) and complication risk (61%). After multivariate adjustment, the following were significantly associated with greater self-reported CVC use (p < 0.01): 1) informal bedside CVC training after residency, 2) male sex, 3) disagreement with complication-related barrier questions, and 4) self-reported comfort with placing US-guided internal jugular catheters. CONCLUSIONS: In this cross-sectional survey-based study, EPs reported varying experience with CVC in the ED and reported high comfort with the US CVC technique. Postresidency informal training experience, male sex, negative responses to complication-related barrier questions, and comfort with placing US-guided internal jugular catheters were associated with yearly CVC volume. These results suggest that higher rates of CVC in eligible patients might be achieved by informal training programs in US and/or by disseminating existing evidence about the low risk of complications associated with the procedure.

Emergency physicians' knowledge and attitudes of clinical decision support in the electronic health record: a survey-based study.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to investigate clinician knowledge of and attitudes toward clinical decision support (CDS) and its incorporation into the electronic health record (EHR). METHODS: This was an electronic survey of emergency physicians (EPs) within an integrated health care delivery system that uses a complete EHR. Randomly assigned respondents completed one of two questionnaires, both including a hypothetical vignette and self-reported knowledge of and attitudes about CDS. One vignette version included CDS, and the other did not (NCDS). The vignette described a scenario in which a cranial computed tomography (CCT) is not recommended by validated prediction rules (the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network [PECARN] rules). In both survey versions, subjects responded first with their likely approach to evaluation and then again after receiving either CDS (the PECARN prediction rules) or no additional support. Descriptive statistics were used for self-reported responses and multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors of self-reported knowledge and use of the PECARN rules, as well as use of vignette responses. RESULTS: There were 339 respondents (68% response rate), with 172 of 339 (51%) randomized to the CDS version. Initially, 25% of respondents to each version indicated they would order CCTs. After CDS, 30 of 43 (70%) of respondents who initially would order CCTs changed their management decisions to no CCT versus two of 41 (5%) with the NCDS version (chi-square, p = 0.003). In response to self-report questions, 81 of 338 respondents (24%) reported having never heard of the PECARN prediction rules, 122 of 338 (36%) were aware of the rules but not their specifics, and 135 of 338 (40%) reported knowing the rules and their specifics. Respondents agreed with favorable statements about CDS (75% to 96% agreement across seven statements) and approaches to its implementation into the EHR (60% to 93% agreement across seven statements). In multivariable analyses, EPs with tenure of 5 to 14 years (odds ratio [AOR] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.30 to 0.86) and for 15 years or more (AOR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.20 to 0.70) were significantly less likely to report knowing the specifics of the PECARN prediction rules compared with EPs who practiced for fewer than 5 years. In addition, in the initial vignette responses (across both versions), physicians with ≥15 years of ED tenure compared to those with fewer than 5 years of experience (AOR = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.13 to 0.69), and those reporting knowing the specifics of the PECARN prediction rules were less likely to order CCTs (AOR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: EPs incorporated pediatric head trauma CDS via the EHR into their clinical judgment in a hypothetical scenario and reported favorable opinions of CDS in general and their inclusion into the EHR.