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.

Validation of cerebrospinal fluid findings in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Recently proposed cutoff criteria for cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analyses might safely exclude a diagnosis of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the sensitivity of a CSF red blood cell (RBC) count greater than 2000 × 10(6)/L (ie, 2000 RBCs per microliter) or the presence of visible CSF xanthochromia in identifying patients with aSAH. METHODS: We identified a retrospective case series of patients diagnosed with aSAH after lumbar puncture (LP) in an integrated health delivery system between January 2000 and June 2013 by chart review. All identified patients had at least 1 cerebral aneurysm that was treated with a neurosurgical or endovascular intervention during the index hospitalization. The lowest CSF RBC count was used for validation analysis. Cerebrospinal fluid color was determined by visual inspection. Xanthochromia was defined as pink, orange, or yellow pigmentation of CSF supernatant. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients met study inclusion criteria. Of these, 17 (33%) of 52 underwent LP within 12 hours of headache onset, and 49 (84%) of 58 exhibited CSF xanthochromia. The median CSF RBC count was 63250 × 10(6)/L. The sensitivity of a CSF RBC count of greater than 2000 × 10(6)/L in identifying aSAH was 96.9% (95% confidence interval, 89.3%-99.1%). Additional consideration of CSF xanthochromia resulted in a sensitivity of 100% (95% confidence interval, 94.3%-100%). CONCLUSIONS: All patients in this case series of patients with aSAH had either a CSF RBC count greater than 2000 × 10(6)/L or visible CSF xanthochromia, increasing the likelihood that this proposed cutoff strategy may safely identify patients who warrant further investigation for an aneurysmal cause of subarachnoid hemorrhage.

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.