A Prospective Evaluation of Clinical HEART Score Agreement, Accuracy, and Adherence in Emergency Department Chest Pain Patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The HEART score is a risk stratification aid that may safely reduce chest pain admissions for emergency department patients. However, differences in interpretation of subjective components potentially alters the performance of the score. We compared agreement between HEART scores determined during clinical practice with research-generated scores and estimated their accuracy in predicting 30-day major adverse cardiac events. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled adult ED patients with symptoms concerning for acute coronary syndrome at a single tertiary center. ED clinicians submitted their clinical HEART scores during the patient encounter. Researchers then independently interviewed patients to generate a research HEART score. Patients were followed by phone and chart review for major adverse cardiac events. Weighted kappa; unweighted Cohen's kappa; prevalence-adjusted, bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK); and test probabilities were calculated. RESULTS: From November 2016 to June 2019, 336 patients were enrolled, 261 (77.7%) were admitted, and 30 (8.9%) had major adverse cardiac events. Dichotomized HEART score agreement was 78% (kappa 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 0.58; PABAK 0.57, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.65) with the lowest agreement in the history (72%; WK 0.14, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.22) and electrocardiogram (85%; WK 0.4, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.49) components. Compared with researchers, clinicians had 100% sensitivity (95% CI 88.4% to 100%) (versus 86.7%, 95% CI 69.3% to 96.2%) and 27.8% specificity (95% CI 22.8% to 33.2%) (versus 34.6%, 95% CI 29.3% to 40.3%) for major adverse cardiac events. Four participants with low research HEART scores had major adverse cardiac events. CONCLUSION: ED clinicians had only moderate agreement with research HEART scores. Combined with uncertainties regarding accuracy in predicting major adverse cardiac events, we urge caution in the widespread use of the HEART score as the sole determinant of ED disposition.

A prospective analysis of time to screen protocol ECGs in adult Emergency Department triage patients.

BACKGROUND: Early identification of ST elevation MI (STEMI) in emergency departments (ED) via electrocardiogram (ECG) expedites intervention. While screening of all ED chest pain ECGs should be obtained within 10 minutes per the American Heart Association, 40% of all ECGs are software-analyzed as "Normal" or "Otherwise Normal." However, the reliability of this analysis and the time for confirmation read are uncertain. This study investigates the time necessary for Patient Care Technicians (PCTs) to deliver ECGs to ED attendings to confirm automated interpretation. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted at a single academic ED. All patients ≥18 years who had a triage ECG were included. ECGs were obtained within 10 min of arrival, time-stamped, delivered for ED attending review and time-stamped upon PCT return to triage. Data were entered into REDCap and analyzed using StatPlus. RESULTS: During the 4-month study, 1768 ECGs were collected. Distribution of automated readings was: "Normal ECG" 33.7%; "Otherwise Normal ECG" 11.2%; and "borderline/abnormal" 55.1%. The median time necessary for PCTs to confirm a screening ECG was 2.8 min (IQR 2,4) with attending physicians interrupted an average of 14.6 times per day. CONCLUSION: Screening of triage ECGs is time-intensive and compounds the frequency of physician interruptions. Although findings are not generalizable, the impact of these interruptions on patient care and safety is paramount and universal. Future directions include validating the reliability of "Normal" and "Otherwise Normal" ECG automated readings to obviate the need to interrupt ED physician for expedited screening confirmation.

Feasibility and efficacy of a decision aid for emergency department patients with suspected ureterolithiasis: protocol for an adaptive randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 2 million patients present to emergency departments in the USA annually with signs and symptoms of ureterolithiasis (or renal colic, the pain from an obstructing kidney stone). Both ultrasound and CT scan can be used for diagnosis, but the vast majority of patients receive a CT scan. Diagnostic pathways utilizing ultrasound have been shown to decrease radiation exposure to patients but are potentially less accurate. Because of these and other trade-offs, this decision has been proposed as appropriate for Shared Decision-Making (SDM), where clinicians and patients discuss clinical options and their consequences and arrive at a decision together. We developed a decision aid to facilitate SDM in this scenario. The objective of this study is to determine the effects of this decision aid, as compared to usual care, on patient knowledge, radiation exposure, engagement, safety, and healthcare utilization. METHODS: This is the protocol for an adaptive randomized controlled trial to determine the effects of the intervention-a decision aid ("Kidney Stone Choice")-on patient-centered outcomes, compared with usual care. Patients age 18-55 presenting to the emergency department with signs and symptoms consistent with acute uncomplicated ureterolithiasis will be consecutively enrolled and randomized. Participants will be blinded to group allocation. We will collect outcomes related to patient knowledge, radiation exposure, trust in physician, safety, and downstream healthcare utilization. DISCUSSION: We hypothesize that this study will demonstrate that "Kidney Stone Choice," the decision aid created for this scenario, improves patient knowledge and decreases exposure to ionizing radiation. The adaptive design of this study will allow us to identify issues with fidelity and feasibility and subsequently evaluate the intervention for efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04234035 . Registered on 21 January 2020 - Retrospectively Registered.

Physician-identified barriers to and facilitators of shared decision-making in the Emergency Department: an exploratory analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Shared decision-making (SDM) is receiving increasing attention in emergency medicine because of its potential to increase patient engagement and decrease unnecessary healthcare utilisation. This study sought to explore physician-identified barriers to and facilitators of SDM in the ED. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with practising emergency physicians (EP) with the aim of understanding when and why EPs engage in SDM, and when and why they feel unable to engage in SDM. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and a three-member team coded all transcripts in an iterative fashion using a directed approach to qualitative content analysis. We identified emergent themes, and organised themes based on an integrative theoretical model that combined the theory of planned behaviour and social cognitive theory. RESULTS: Fifteen EPs practising in the New England region of the USA were interviewed. Physicians described the following barriers: time constraints, clinical uncertainty, fear of a bad outcome, certain patient characteristics, lack of follow-up and other emotional and logistical stressors. They noted that risk stratification methods, the perception that SDM decreased liability and their own improving clinical skills facilitated their use of SDM. They also noted that the culture of the institution could play a role in discouraging or promoting SDM, and that patients could encourage SDM by specifically asking about alternatives. CONCLUSIONS: EPs face many barriers to using SDM. Some, such as lack of follow-up, are unique to the ED; others, such as the challenges of communicating uncertainty, may affect other providers. Many of the barriers to SDM are amenable to intervention, but may be of variable importance in different EDs. Further research should attempt to identify which barriers are most prevalent and most amenable to intervention, as well as capitalise on the facilitators noted.

A Qualitative Analysis of Attending Physicians' Use of Shared Decision-Making: Implications for Resident Education.

BACKGROUND: Physicians need to rapidly and effectively facilitate patient-centered, shared decision-making (SDM) conversations, but little is known about how residents or attending physicians acquire this skill. OBJECTIVE: We explored emergency medicine (EM) attending physicians' use of SDM in the context of their experience as former residents and current educators and assessed the implications of these findings on learning opportunities for residents. METHODS: We used semistructured interviews with a purposeful sample of EM physicians. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and 3 research team members performed iterative, open coding of transcripts, building a provisional codebook as work progressed. We analyzed the data with a focus on participants' acquisition and use of skills required for SDM and their use of SDM in the context of resident education. RESULTS: Fifteen EM physicians from academic and community practices were interviewed. All reported using SDM techniques to some degree. Multiple themes noted had negative implications for resident acquisition of this skill: (1) the complex relationships among patients, residents, and attending physicians; (2) residents' skill levels; (3) the setting of busy emergency departments; and (4) individual attending factors. One theme was noted to facilitate resident education: the changing culture-with a cultural shift toward patient-centered care. CONCLUSIONS: A constellation of factors may diminish opportunities for residents to acquire and practice SDM skills. Further research should explore residents' perspectives, address the modifiable obstacles identified, and examine whether these issues generalize to other specialties.

The Physician-as-Stakeholder: An Exploratory Qualitative Analysis of Physicians' Motivations for Using Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is increasingly recognized as an important facet of patient-centered care. Despite growing interest in SDM in the emergency department (ED), little is known about emergency physicians' (EPs') motivations for using SDM. Understanding current patterns of SDM use and EP's rationale for using SDM is essential for the development of interventions to increase use. OBJECTIVES: Recognizing the EP as an important stakeholder in SDM research, we sought to identify and explore factors that may motivate EPs' engagement in SDM. METHODS: In this qualitative study, informed by the Theory of Planned Behavior and Social Cognitive Theory, we conducted semistructured interviews with a purposeful sample of EPs. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Using a directed qualitative content analysis approach, three members of the research team performed open coding of the transcripts in an iterative process, building a provisional code book as coding progressed. Respondent validation was employed to ensure methodologic rigor. RESULTS: Fifteen EPs, ages 31-65, from both academic and community practice settings, were interviewed. Several had not heard of the specific phrase "shared decision making," but all understood the concept and felt that they used SDM techniques to some degree. Most noted they had often had an agenda when they used SDM, which often motivated them to have the conversation. Agendas described included counteracting an algorithmic or defensive approach to diagnosis and treatment, avoiding harmful tests, or sharing uncertainty. All participants believed that patients benefited from SDM in terms of satisfaction, engagement, or education. Nearly all participants identified research outcomes that they felt would encourage their use of SDM (e.g., improvements in patient engagement, mitigation of risk) and many prioritized patient-centered outcomes over systems outcomes such as improved resource utilization. Little consensus was seen, however, regarding the importance of individual outcomes: of eight potential research outcomes participants endorsed, no single outcome was endorsed by even half of the physicians interviewed. CONCLUSION: Emergency physicians identified many factors that motivated them to use SDM. This study informs current research on SDM in the ED, particularly regarding the motivations of the physician-as-stakeholder.

Validity of STONE scores in younger patients presenting with suspected uncomplicated renal colic.

OBJECTIVES: Recent studies have cast doubt on the routine need for emergent computed tomographic (CT) scan in patients with suspected renal colic. A clinical prediction rule, the STONE score, was recently published with the goal of helping clinicians predict obstructive kidney stones in noninfected flank pain patients before CT scan. We sought to examine the validity of this score in younger, noninfected flank pain patients. METHODS: A secondary analysis of a retrospective cohort study was performed to determine the validity of STONE scores for predicting the outcome of obstructive kidney stone in patients age 18 to 50 years presenting with flank pain suggestive of uncomplicated ureterolithiasis. Validity was measured by calculation of the area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curve. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and ±likelihood ratios were calculated for various cutoff values. RESULTS: Of 134 patients who met inclusion criteria, 56.7% were female, average age was 37 years, and 52% had an obstructing kidney stone by CT scan. The receiver operating characteristic curve for the STONE score had an area under the curve of 0.87 (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.93) and indicated that a cutoff of greater than or equal to 8 would have a sensitivity of 78.6%, specificity of 84.4%, negative predictive value of 78.3%, positive predictive value of 84.6%, and +likelihood ratio of 4.9. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that the STONE score is valid in younger populations. It can aid in determining pretest probability and help inform conversations about the likelihood of the diagnosis of renal colic before imaging, which may be useful for decision making.

Young patients with suspected uncomplicated renal colic are unlikely to have dangerous alternative diagnoses or need emergent intervention.

INTRODUCTION: In the United States there is debate regarding the appropriate first test for new-onset renal colic, with non-contrast helical computed tomography (CT) receiving the highest ratings from both Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the American Urological Association. This is based not only on its accuracy for the diagnosis of renal colic, but also its ability to diagnose other surgical emergencies, which have been thought to occur in 10-15% of patients with suspected renal colic, based on previous studies. In younger patients, it may be reasonable to attempt to avoid immediate CT if concern for dangerous alternative diagnosis is low, based on the risks of radiation from CTs, and particularly in light of evidence that patients with renal colic have a very high likelihood of having multiple CTs in their lifetimes. The objective is to determine the proportion of patients with a dangerous alternative diagnosis in adult patients age 50 and under presenting with uncomplicated (non-infected) suspected renal colic, and also to determine what proportion of these patients undergo emergent urologic intervention. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of 12 months of patients age 18-50 presenting with "flank pain," excluding patients with end stage renal disease, urinary tract infection, pregnancy and trauma. Dangerous alternative diagnosis was determined by CT. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-one patients met inclusion criteria. One hundred and fifteen patients had renal protocol CTs, and zero alternative emergent or urgent diagnoses were identified (one-sided 95% CI [0-2.7%]). Of the 291 encounters, there were 7 urologic procedures performed upon first admission (2.4%, 95% CI [1.0-4.9%]). The prevalence of kidney stone by final diagnosis was 58.8%. CONCLUSION: This small sample suggests that in younger patients with uncomplicated renal colic, the benefit of immediate CT for suspected renal colic should be questioned. Further studies are needed to determine which patients benefit from immediate CT for suspected renal colic, and which patients could undergo alternate imaging such as ultrasound.