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.

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.

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.

Clinician attitudes about commercial support of continuing medical education: results of a detailed survey.

BACKGROUND: Pharmaceutical and medical device company funding supports up to 60% of accredited continuing medical education (CME) costs in the United States. Some have proposed measures to limit the size, scope, and potential influence of commercial support for CME activities. We sought to determine whether participants at CME activities perceive that commercial support introduces bias, whether this is affected by the amount or type of support, and whether they would be willing to accept higher fees or fewer amenities to decrease the need for such funding. METHODS: We delivered a structured questionnaire to 1347 participants at a series of 5 live CME activities about the impact of commercial support on bias and their willingness to pay additional amounts to eliminate the need for commercial support. RESULTS: Of the 770 respondents (a 57% response rate), most (88%) believed that commercial support introduces bias, with greater amounts of support introducing greater risk of bias. Only 15%, however, supported elimination of commercial support from CME activities, and less than half (42%) were willing to pay increased registration fees to decrease or eliminate commercial support. Participants who perceived bias from commercial support more frequently agreed to increase registration fees to decrease such support (2- to 3-fold odds ratio). Participants greatly underestimated the costs of ancillary activities, such as food, as well as the degree of support actually provided by commercial funding. CONCLUSION: Although the medical professionals responding to this survey were concerned about bias introduced from commercial funding of CME, many were not willing to pay higher fees to offset or eliminate such funding sources.

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.