The American Board of Emergency Medicine Maintenance of Certification Summit.

BACKGROUND: The American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) convened a summit of stakeholders in Emergency Medicine (EM) to critically review the ABEM Maintenance of Certification (MOC) Program. OBJECTIVE: The newly introduced American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) 2015 MOC Standards require that the ABMS Member Boards, including ABEM, "engage in continual quality monitoring and improvement of its Program for MOC …" ABEM sought to have the EM community participate in the quality improvement process. DISCUSSION: A review of the ABMS philosophy of MOC and requirements for MOC were presented, followed by an exposition of the ABEM MOC Program. Roundtable discussions included strengths of the program and opportunities for improvement; defining, teaching, and assessing professionalism; identifying and filling competency gaps; and enhancing relevancy and adding value to the ABEM MOC Program. CONCLUSIONS: Several suggestions to improve the ABEM MOC Program were discussed. ABEM will consider these recommendations when developing its next revision of the ABEM MOC Program.

Use and diagnostic value of liver enzyme tests in the emergency department and subsequent heart failure diagnosis: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine (1) if liver function tests (LFTs) are ordered in the emergency department (ED) in patients with suspected acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) and (2) if the pattern of LFT abnormalities are meaningfully associated with a discharge diagnosis of ADHF among patients for whom these tests were ordered. SETTING: We conducted a single-centre retrospective cohort study of patients with suspected ADHF who were seen in an academic tertiary ED using electronic medical records. PARTICIPANTS: All ED patients admitted with suspected ADHF from January 2017 to May 2018, defined as any patient who had a brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) ordered. PRIMARY OUTCOME: The primary outcome was ADHF diagnosis at discharge. RESULTS: In 5323 ED patients with suspected ADHF, 60% (n=3184) had LFTs ordered; 34.6% were abnormal. Men comprised 56% of patients with abnormal LFTs and the average age was 67 years. The odds of a final diagnosis of ADHF in the univariate analysis was 59% higher in patients with abnormal LFTs (OR=1.59, (95% CI 1.35 to 1.87) p<0.001) and remained significant though attenuated after adjusting for BNP, race and ethnicity and age (ORadj=1.31 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.57), p=0.004). Likelihood ratios for abnormal and normal LFTs were 1.2 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.28) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.84), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion (40%) of patients with suspected ADHF was missing LFTs in their ED workup. Among patients with LFTs, abnormal LFTs are associated with discharge diagnosis of ADHF after accounting for potential confounders, but their diagnostic value was relatively low. Future prospective studies are warranted to explore the role of LFTs in the workup of ADHF.

The presence of outcome bias in emergency physician retrospective judgments of the quality of care.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: In peer review and malpractice litigation, biased assessment of the quality of care can have a profound effect. We determine the effect of knowledge of outcome on emergency physicians' ability to assess care quality. METHODS: Emergency physicians completed a Web-based survey containing 6 case scenarios written to fall along a spectrum of quality of care. Participants were randomized to receive either no case outcomes or a mixture of good and bad outcomes. For each scenario, participants rated the quality of care categorically (poor, below average, average, good, outstanding) and on a 0- to 100-point scale. We examined how the scenario's outcome affected judgments about the quality of the process of care and whether certain individuals are more prone to outcome bias. RESULTS: Five hundred eighty-seven participants completed the survey. For each scenario, quality ratings were highest when the outcome was good and lowest when the outcome was bad. The difference between ratings for "good outcome" and "no outcome provided" was bigger than the difference between "no outcome provided" and "bad outcome." In cases of intermediate quality, outcome bias shifts ratings by a magnitude equivalent to 1 qualitative step in quality (eg, from good to average). The outcome bias effect is smaller for scenarios for which care is unambiguously good or bad. We found no evidence that outcome bias was concentrated in individuals. CONCLUSION: Emergency physicians demonstrate outcome bias in cases of intermediate quality more than in cases in which the quality of care is clear. Outcome bias tends to inflate ratings in the presence of a positive outcome more than it penalizes scenarios with negative ones.

Should acute treatment with inhaled beta agonists be withheld from patients with dyspnea who may have heart failure?

In patients with dyspnea, prehospital and emergency providers make therapeutic decisions before a diagnosis is established. Inhaled beta-2 agonists are frontline treatment for patients with dyspnea due to asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations. However, these agents have been associated with increased adverse events when administered chronically to heart failure patients. Our goal was to determine the safety and efficacy of acute administration of inhaled beta-2 agonists to patients with heart failure. MEDLINE and EMBASE searches were performed using the terms "beta agonists," "albuterol," "congestive heart failure," and "pulmonary edema." Bibliographies of relevant articles were searched. Only studies addressing acute effects of beta-2 agonists were included for analysis. Twenty-four studies comprising 434 patients were identified that addressed the acute delivery of beta-2 agonists in subjects with heart failure--five studies with inhaled administration and 19 with systemic administration. No study directly evaluated the effects of inhaled beta-2 agonists to patients with acutely decompensated heart failure. Treatment of heart failure patients with beta-2 agonists resulted in transient improvements in pulmonary function and cardiovascular hemodynamics. Only one investigation reported an association between beta-2 agonist use and an increase in malignant dysrhythmias. Investigations in animal models of heart failure and acute lung injury demonstrated resolution of pulmonary edema with beta agonist administration. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that acute treatment with inhaled beta-2 agonists should be avoided in patients with dyspnea who may have heart failure. Based on small studies and indirect evidence, administration of beta-2 agonists to patients with heart failure seems to improve pulmonary function, cardiovascular hemodynamics, and resorption of pulmonary edema. Although an increase in adverse effects with the use of beta-2 agonists cannot be ruled out based on these data, there was no evidence of an increase in clinically significant dysrhythmias, especially when administered by inhalation. Based on these findings, further study should focus on the clinical outcomes of patients with acutely decompensated heart failure who are treated with inhaled beta-2 agonist therapy.

Lack of association between left bundle-branch block and acute myocardial infarction in symptomatic ED patients.

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines recommend treating patients with a new or presumed new left bundle-branch block (LBBB) similar to those with an acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. It is often unclear which emergency department (ED) patients with potentially ischemic symptoms actually have an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), even in the setting of LBBB. Our null hypothesis was that in ED patients with potential AMI, the presence of a new or presumed new LBBB would not predict an increased likelihood of AMI. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study. Patients older than 30 years who presented with chest pain or other ischemic equivalent and had an electrocardiogram (ECG) to evaluate potential acute coronary syndrome (ACS) were enrolled. Data collected include demographics, history, ECG, and cardiac markers. Electrocardiograms were classified according to the standardized guidelines, including LBBB not known to be old (new or presumed new LBBB), LBBB known to be old, or no LBBB. The hospital course was followed, and 30-day follow-up was performed on all patients. Our main outcome was AMI. RESULTS: There were 7937 visits (mean age, 54.3 +/- 15 years, 57% female, 68% black): 55 had new or presumed new LBBB, 136 had old LBBB, and 7746 had no LBBB. The rate of AMI was not significantly different between the 3 groups (7.3% vs 5.2% vs 6.1%; P = .75). Revascularization (7.8% vs old 5.2% vs 4.3%; P = .04) and coronary artery disease were more common in patients with new or presumed new LBBB (19.2% vs 11.9% vs 10.1%; P = .0004). CONCLUSIONS: Despite guideline recommendations that patients with potential ACS and new or presumed new LBBB should be treated similar to STEMI, ED patients with a new or presumed new LBBB are not at increased risk of AMI. In fact, the presence of LBBB, whether new or old, did not predict AMI. Caution should be used in applying recommendations derived from patients with definite AMI to ED patients with potential ACS that may or may not be sustaining an AMI.

Electrocardiographic criteria for detecting acute myocardial infarction in patients with left bundle branch block: a meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Numerous investigators have evaluated the ECG algorithm described by Sgarbossa et al to predict acute myocardial infarction in the presence of left bundle branch block and have arrived at divergent conclusions. To clarify the utility of the Sgarbossa ECG algorithm, we perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of these trials. METHODS: A structured search was applied to MEDLINE and Scopus databases, beginning with the year that the algorithm was derived (1996). Two reviewers independently screened citations, assessed for method quality, and extracted data (individual study characteristics, screening performance, and interobserver agreement) with a standardized extraction tool. We assessed qualifying studies for heterogeneity and generated summary estimates for the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios with fixed-effect models. RESULTS: We identified 11 studies with 2,100 patients that met criteria for at least 1 component of the analysis. Ten studies with 1,614 patients reported a Sgarbossa ECG algorithm score of greater than or equal to 3. These yielded a summary sensitivity of 20% (95% confidence interval [CI] 18% to 23%), specificity of 98% (95% CI 97% to 99%), a positive likelihood ratio of 7.9 (95% CI 4.5 to 13.8), and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.8 (95% CI 0.8 to 0.9). The summary diagnostic odds ratio revealed homogeneity. Seven studies with 1,213 patients reported a Sgarbossa ECG algorithm score of greater than or equal to 2. These yielded sensitivities ranging from 20% to 79% and specificities ranging from 61% to 100%. Positive likelihood ratios ranged from 0.7 to 6.6 and negative likelihood ratios ranged from 0.2 to 1.1. The summary diagnostic odds ratio revealed heterogeneity. Intra- and interobserver agreement was substantial. Sensitivity analysis using the highest-quality studies yielded similar results. CONCLUSION: A Sgarbossa ECG algorithm score of greater than or equal to 3, representing greater than or equal to 1 mm of concordant ST elevation or greater than or equal to 1 mm ST depression in leads V1 to V3, is useful for diagnosing acute myocardial infarction in patients who present with left bundle branch block on ECG. The scoring system demonstrates good to excellent overall interobserver variability. A score of 2, representing 5 mm or more of discordant ST deviation, demonstrated ineffective positive likelihood ratios. A Sgarbossa ECG algorithm score of 0 is not useful in excluding acute myocardial infarction.

What's in It for Me? Maintenance of Certification as an Incentive for Faculty Supervision of Resident Quality Improvement Projects.

PROBLEM: Residents are required to engage in quality improvement (QI) activities, which requires faculty engagement. Because of increasing program requirements and clinical demands, faculty may be resistant to taking on additional teaching and supervisory responsibilities without incentives. The authors sought to create an authentic benefit for University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Pediatrics Residency Training Program faculty who supervise pediatrics residents' QI projects by offering maintenance of certification (MOC) Part 4 (Performance in Practice) credit. APPROACH: The authors identified MOC as an ideal framework to both more actively engage faculty who were supervising QI projects and provide incentives for doing so. To this end, in 2011, the authors designed an MOC portfolio program which included faculty development, active supervision of residents, and QI projects designed to improve patient care. OUTCOMES: The UCSF Pediatrics Residency Training Program's Portfolio Sponsor application was approved by the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) in 2012, and faculty whose projects were included in the application were granted MOC Part 4 credit. As of December 2013, six faculty had received MOC Part 4 credit for their supervision of residents' QI projects. NEXT STEPS: Based largely on the success of this program, UCSF has transitioned to the MOC portfolio program administered through the American Board of Medical Specialties, which allows the organization to offer MOC Part 4 credit from multiple specialty boards including the ABP. This may require refinements to screening, over sight, and reporting structures to ensure the MOC standards are met. Ongoing faculty development will be essential.

Prevalence of acute myocardial infarction and other serious diagnoses in patients presenting to an urban emergency department with chest pain.

A retrospective cohort study and chart review were performed to estimate the absolute and relative prevalence of the serious diagnoses that might cause a patient to present to the Emergency Department (ED) with a chief complaint of chest pain. In this study, we queried a database of 347,229 complete visits to the San Francisco General Hospital Emergency Department between July 1, 1993 and June 30, 1998 for visits by patients > 35 years old with a chief complaint of chest pain and no history of trauma. Visits for chest pain that resulted in hospitalization were assigned to one of nine diagnostic groups according to final diagnoses as coded in the database. Manual chart review by trained abstractors using explicit criteria was done when group assignment based on coded diagnoses was unclear and in all diagnoses of pulmonary embolism and aortic dissection. Of 8,711 visits (2.5% of all visits) with a chief complaint of non-traumatic chest pain, 3,271 (37.6%) resulted in hospitalization. Of the 3,078 (94.1% of those hospitalized) assigned a final diagnosis, 329 (10.7% of hospitalizations, 3.8% of all visits) had acute myocardial infarction, 693 (22.5%) had either unstable angina or stable coronary artery disease, and 345 (11.2%) had pulmonary causes (mainly bacterial pneumonia) deemed serious enough to require hospitalization. Pulmonary embolism and aortic dissection were diagnosed in only 12 (0.4%) and 8 (0.3%) patients, respectively. In 905 (29.4%) hospitalizations for chest pain, myocardial infarction was "ruled out" and no cardiac ischemia or other serious etiology for the chest pain was diagnosed. Among patients presenting with chest pain, those in older age groups had dramatically increased risk of acute myocardial infarction. Women presenting with chest pain had a lower risk of acute myocardial infarction than men. In conclusion, the prevalence of acute myocardial infarction in the undifferentiated ED patient with a chief complaint of chest pain is only about 4%. An equal number of patients will have a serious pulmonary cause as the etiology of their pain. Pulmonary embolism and aortic dissection are important but extremely rare causes of a chest pain presentation to the ED.