The effect of increasing emergency department observation volumes on downstream admission rates.

Rising length of stay and inpatient boarding in emergency departments have directly affected patient satisfaction and nearly all provider-to-patient care metrics. Prior studies suggest that ED observation has significant clinical and financial benefits including decreasing hospitalization and length of stay. ED observation is one method long employed to shorten ED length of stay and to free up inpatient beds, yet many patients continue to be admitted to the hospital with an average hospital length of stay of only one day. The objectives of this study were to evaluate whether vigorous tracking and provider reviews of one day hospital admits affected the utilization of ED observation and whether this correlated with significant change in rates of admission from observation status. Between September 2020 and May 2021, in a tertiary care hospital with an annual ED volume of 55,0000, chart reviews of 24-h inpatient discharges were initiated by two senior EM faculty to determine perceived suitability for ED observation. Non-punitive email reviews were then initiated with ED attending providers in order to encourage evaluation of whether these patients would have benefitted from being placed into observation. We then analyzed ED observation patient volumes and subsequent admission rates to the hospital from ED observation and compared these numbers to baseline ED observation volume and admission rates between September 2018 and May 2019. A total of 1448 reviews were conducted on 24-h discharges which correlated with an increase in utilization of ED observation from 11.77% (95% CI [11.62, 12.31]) of total ED volume in our control period to 14.21% (95% CI [13.84, 14.58]) during the study period. We found that the overall admission rate from ED observation increased from 20.12% (95% CI [18.97, 21.26]) baseline to 23.80% (95% CI [22.60, 25.00]) during the same time periods. Our data suggest that increasing the total number of patients placed into observation by 21% correlated with a relative increase in admission rates from ED observation by 18%. This would suggest that our efforts to potentially include more patients into our observation program led to a significant increase in subsequent admission rates. There is likely a balance that must be struck between under- and over-utilization of ED observation, and expanding ED observation may be an effective solution to hospital boarding and ED overcrowding.

Can Asking Emergency Physicians Whether or Not They Would Have Done Something Differently (WYHDSD) be a Useful Screening Tool to Identify Emergency Department Error?

BACKGROUND: Error in emergency medicine remains common and difficult to identify. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if questioning emergency physician reviewers as to whether or not they would have done something differently (Would you have done something differently? [WYHDSD]) can be a useful marker to identify error. METHODS: Prospective data were collected on all patients presenting to an academic emergency department (ED) between 2017 and 2021. All cases who met the following criteria were identified: 1) returned to ED within 72 h and admitted; 2) transferred to intensive care unit from floor within 24 h of admission; 3) expired within 24 h of arrival; or 4) patient or provider complaint. Cases were randomly assigned to emergency physicians and reviewed using an electronic tool to assess for error and adverse events. Reviewers were then mandated to answer WYHDSD in the management of the case. RESULTS: During the study period, 6672 cases were reviewed. Of the 5857 cases where reviewers would not have done something differently, 5847 cases were found to have no error. The question WYHDSD had a sensitivity of 97.4% in predicting error and a negative predictive value of 99.8%. CONCLUSION: There was a significantly higher rate of near misses, adverse events, and errors attributable to an adverse event in cases where the reviewer would have done something differently (WHDSD) compared with cases where they would not. Therefore, asking reviewers if they WHDSD could potentially be used as a marker to identify error and improve patient care in the ED.

The Association between Emergency Department Length of Stay and In-Hospital Mortality in Older Patients Using Machine Learning: An Observational Cohort Study.

The association between emergency department (ED) length of stay (EDLOS) with in-hospital mortality (IHM) in older patients remains unclear. This retrospective study aims to delineate the relationship between EDLOS and IHM in elderly patients. From the ED patients (n = 383,586) who visited an urban academic tertiary care medical center from January 2010 to December 2016, 78,478 older patients (age ≥60 years) were identified and stratified into three age subgroups: 60-74 (early elderly), 75-89 (late elderly), and ≥90 years (longevous elderly). We applied multiple machine learning approaches to identify the risk correlation trends between EDLOS and IHM, as well as boarding time (BT) and IHM. The incidence of IHM increased with age: 60-74 (2.7%), 75-89 (4.5%), and ≥90 years (6.3%). The best area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was obtained by Light Gradient Boosting Machine model for age groups 60-74, 75-89, and ≥90 years, which were 0.892 (95% CI, 0.870-0.916), 0.886 (95% CI, 0.861-0.911), and 0.838 (95% CI, 0.782-0.887), respectively. Our study showed that EDLOS and BT were statistically correlated with IHM (p < 0.001), and a significantly higher risk of IHM was found in low EDLOS and high BT. The flagged rate of quality assurance issues was higher in lower EDLOS ≤1 h (9.96%) vs. higher EDLOS 7 h

The data and the reality: urine cultures and emergency medicine physicians.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The IDSA has published guidelines for the treatment of urinary tract infections, recommending limiting treatment to symptomatic patients and pregnant females. Our objective is to elucidate current practice patterns among emergency physicians (EPs) in treating positive urine cultures in various clinical situations. METHODS: This study employed a cross-sectional design utilizing a questionnaire addressing nine common scenarios encountered by EPs in the follow-up of a positive urine culture. The questionnaire was conducted using RedCap and distributed via email to current and former physicians and residents across our hospital network. Demographic information included years of training and practice setting. For each of nine clinical scenarios, Physicians were asked if they would treat with antibiotics. Results were then analyzed by tabulating percentage of responses and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Of 120 respondents, 40.8% worked in academic centers with emergency medicine residencies, 37.5% in large community hospitals, and 20.67% in small community hospitals. Responses came from 14 residents, 33 attendings < 5 years out of training, 23 attendings 5-9 years out of training, 37 attendings 10-20 years out of training, and 13 attendings > 20 beyond training. Asymptomatic young women were treated by 34.2% (95% CI 25.91-43.46%) while asymptomatic elderly women were treated by 50% (95% CI 40.79-59.21%) of EPs. All EPs (95% CI 96.13-100%) chose to treat a symptomatic male and 99.2% (95% CI 94.77-99.96%) chose to treat an asymptomatic pregnant female. Elderly females after a fall were treated by 63.3% (95% CI 54-71.8%) of EPs while elderly males with confusion and a fall were treated by 96.7% (95% CI 91.18-98.93%). Asymptomatic males with a chronic Foley catheter were treated by 28.2% (95% CI 20.67-37.4%) of EPs and 46.7% (95%CI 37.59-55.97%) would treat an asymptomatic middle-aged female with diabetes. Finally, 92.5% (95% CI 85.85-96.3%) of EPs chose to treat an asymptomatic kidney transplant patient. CONCLUSION: EPs in varied training stages and practice settings have significant practice variation in the treatment of positive urine cultures, particularly in the geriatric population, often prescribing antibiotics to patients where clear, specific and data-driven IDSA guidelines suggest treatment is unnecessary and potentially harmful.

Assessing resident and attending error and adverse events in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data looking at resident error or contrasting errors and adverse events among residents and attendings. This type of data could be vital in developing and enhancing educational curricula OBJECTIVES: Using an integrated, readily accessible electronic error reporting system the objective of this study is to compare the frequency and types of error and adverse events attributed to emergency medicine residents with those attributed to emergency medicine attendings. METHODS: Individual events were classified into errors and/or adverse events, and were attributed to one of three groups-residents only, attendings only, or both (if the event had both resident and attending involvement). Error and adverse events were also classified into five different categories of events-systems, documentation, diagnostic, procedural and treatment. The proportion of error events were compared between the residents only and the attendings only group using a one-sample test of proportions. Categorical variables were compared using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Of a total of 115 observed events over the 11-month data collection period, 96 (83.4%) were errors. A majority of these errors, 40 (41.7%), were attributed to both residents and attendings, 20 (20.8%) were attributed to residents only, and 36 (37.5%) were attributed to attendings only. Of the 19 adverse events, 14 (73.7%) were attributed to both residents and attendings, and 5 (26.3%) adverse events were attributed to attendings only. No adverse events were attributed solely to residents (Table 1). Excluding events attributed to both residents and attendings, there was a significant difference between the proportion of errors attributed to attendings only (64.3%, CI: 50.6, 76.0), and residents only (35.7%, CI: 24.0, 49.0), p = 0.03. (Table 2). There was no significant difference between the residents only and the attendings only group in the distribution of errors and adverse events (Fisher's exact, p = 0.162). (Table 2). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in errors that did not result in adverse events and the rate of errors proceeding to adverse events (Fisher's exact, p = 0.15). (Table 3). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the distribution of the types of errors and adverse events (Fisher's exact, p = 0.09). Treatment related errors were the most common error types, for both the attending and the resident groups. CONCLUSIONS: Resident error, somewhat expectedly, is most commonly related to treatment interventions, and rarely is due to an individual resident mistake. Resident error instead seems to reflect concomitant error on the part of the attending. Error, in general as well as adverse events, are more likely to be attributed to an attending alone rather than to a resident.

Length-of-Stay in the Emergency Department and In-Hospital Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The effect of emergency department (ED) length of stay (EDLOS) on in-hospital mortality (IHM) remains unclear. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the association between EDLOS and IHM. We searched the PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Scopus databases from their inception until 14−15 January 2022. We included studies reporting the association between EDLOS and IHM. A total of 11,337 references were identified, and 52 studies (total of 1,718,518 ED patients) were included in the systematic review and 33 in the meta-analysis. A statistically significant association between EDLOS and IHM was observed for EDLOS over 24 h in patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) (OR = 1.396, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.147 to 1.701; p < 0.001, I2 = 0%) and for low EDLOS in non-ICU-admitted patients (OR = 0.583, 95% CI: 0.453 to 0.745; p < 0.001, I2 = 0%). No associations were detected for the other cut-offs. Our findings suggest that there is an association between IHM low EDLOS and EDLOS exceeding 24 h and IHM. Long stays in the ED should not be allowed and special attention should be given to patients admitted after a short stay in the ED.

A Tale of Two Cities: Applying the Boston Syncope Criteria to Jerusalem.

BACKGROUND: Syncope is a common reason for emergency department (ED) visits; however, the decision to admit or discharge patients after a syncopal episode remains challenging for emergency physicians. Decision rules such as the Boston Syncope Criteria have been developed in an attempt to aid clinicians in identifying high-risk patients as well as those who can be safely discharged, but applying these rules to different populations remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the Boston Syncope Criteria are valid for emergency department patients in Israel. METHODS: This retrospective cohort convenience sample included patients who visited a tertiary care hospital in Jerusalem from August 2018 to July 2019 with a primary diagnosis of syncope. Thirty-day follow-up was performed using a national health system database. The Boston Syncope Criteria were retrospectively applied to each patient to determine whether they were at high risk for an adverse outcome or critical intervention, versus low risk and could be discharged. RESULTS: A total of 198 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and completed follow-up. Of these, 21 patients had either an adverse outcome or critical intervention. The rule detected 20/21 with a sensitivity of 95%, a specificity of 66%, and a negative predictive value of 99. CONCLUSIONS: The Boston Syncope Criteria may be useful for physicians in other locations throughout the world to discharge low-risk syncope patients as well as identify those at risk of complications.

Errors in Decisionmaking in Emergency Medicine: The Case of the Landscaper's Back and Root Cause Analysis.

Root cause analysis is often suggested as a means of conducting quality assurance, but few physicians are familiar with the actual process. We describe a detailed approach to conducting root cause analysis, with an illustrative case to explain the technique. By studying how root cause analysis is applied to the case of a missed epidural abscess, the reader will see how the process reveals systems improvements that reduce the risk that such a miss will happen again. Following this process will be helpful in using root cause analysis to fix not just individuals' issues but also but systemwide quality assurance issues to improve patient care.

The utility of emergency department physical therapy and case management consultation in reducing hospital admissions.

BACKGROUND: A significant number of patients who present to the emergency department (ED) following a fall or with other injuries require evaluation by a physical therapist. Traditionally, once emergent conditions are excluded in the ED, these patients are admitted to the hospital for evaluation by a physical therapist to determine whether they should be transferred to a sub-acute rehabilitation facility, discharged, require services at home, or require further inpatient care. Case management is typically used in conjunction with a physical therapist to determine eligibility for recommended services and to aid in placement. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefit of using ED-based physical therapist and case management services in lieu of routine hospital admission. METHODS: Retrospective, observational study of consecutive patients presenting to an urban, tertiary care academic medical center ED between December 1, 2017, and November 30, 2018, who had a physical therapist consult placed in the ED. We additionally evaluated which of these patients were placed into ED observation for physical therapist consultation, how many required case management, and ED disposition: discharged home from the ED or ED observation with or without services, placed in a rehabilitation facility, or admitted to the hospital. RESULTS: During the 12-month study period, 1296 patients (2.4% of the total seen in the ED) were assessed by a physical therapist. The mean age was 75.5 ± 15.2 and 832 (64.2%) were female. Case management was involved in 91.8% of these cases. The final patient disposition was as follows: admission 24.3% (95% CI = 22.1-26.7%), home discharge with or without services 47.8% (95% CI = 45.1-50.5%), rehabilitation (rehab) setting 27.9% (95% CI = 25.6%-30.4). The median (interquartile range) time in observation was 13.1 (6.0-20.3), 9.9 (1.8-15.8), and 18.4 (14.1-24.8) hours for patients admitted, discharged home, or sent to rehabilitation (P < 0.001). Among the 979 patients discharged home or sent to rehabilitation, 17 (1.7%) returned to the ED within 72 hours and were ultimately admitted. CONCLUSION: Given that the standard of care would otherwise be an admission to the hospital for 1 day or more for all patients requiring physical therapist consultation, an ED-based physical therapy and case management system serves as a viable method to substantially decrease hospital admissions and potentially reduce resource use, length of hospital stay, and cost both to patients and the health care system.

Using a rule-based system to define error in the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: The evaluation of peer-reviewed cases for error is key to quality assurance (QA) in emergency medicine, but defining error to ensure reviewer agreement and reproducibility remains elusive. The objective of this study was to create a consensus-based set of rules to systematically identify medical errors. METHODS: This is a prospective, observational study of all cases presented for peer review at an urban, tertiary care, academic medical center emergency department (ED) quality assurance (QA) committee between October 13, 2015, and September 14, 2016. Our hospital uses an electronic system enabling staff to self-identify QA issues for subsequent review. In addition, physician or patient complaints, 72-hour returns with admission, death within 24 hours, floor transfers to ICU < 24 hours, and morbidity and mortality conference cases are automatic triggers for review. Trained reviewers not involved in the patient's care use a structured 8-point Likert scale to assess for error and preventable or non-preventable adverse events. Cases where reviewers perceived a need for additional treatment, or that caused patient harm, are referred to a 20-member committee of emergency department leadership, attendings, residents, and nurses for consensus review. For this study, "rules" were proposed by the reviewers identifying the error and validated by consensus during each meeting. The committee then decided if a rule had been broken (error) or not broken (judgment call). If an error could not be phrased in terms of a rule broken, then it would not be considered an error. The rules were then evaluated by 2 reviewers and organized by theme into categories to determine common errors in emergency medicine. RESULTS: We identified 108 episodes of rules broken in 103 cases within a database of 920 QA reviewed cases. In cases where a rule was broken and therefore an error was scored, the following 5 major themes emerged: (1) not acquiring necessary information (eg, not completing a relevant physical exam), N = 33 (31%); (2) not acting on data that were acquired (eg, abnormal vital signs or labs), N = 25 (23%); (3) knowledge gaps by clinicians (eg, not knowing to reduce a hernia), N = 16 (15%); (4) communication gaps (eg, discharge instructions), N = 17 (16%); and (5) systems issues (eg, improper patient registration), N = 17 (16%). CONCLUSION: The development of consensus-based rules may result in a more standardized and practical definition of error in emergency medicine to be used as a QA tool and a basis for research. The most common type of rule broken was not acquiring necessary information. A rule-based definition of medical error in emergency medicine may identify key areas for risk reduction strategies, help standardize medical QA, and improve patient care and physician education.

Getting to the heart of the issue: senior emergency resident electrocardiogram interpretation and its impact on quality assurance events.

OBJECTIVE: Electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation skills are of critical importance for diagnostic accuracy and patient safety. In our emergency department (ED), senior third-year emergency medicine residents (EM3s) are the initial interpreters of all ED ECGs. While this is an integral part of emergency medicine education, the accuracy of ECG interpretation is unknown. We aimed to review the adverse quality assurance (QA) events associated with ECG interpretation by EM3s. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of all ED ECGs performed between October 2015 and October 2018, which were read primarily by EM3s, at an urban tertiary care medical center treating 56,000 patients per year. All cases referred to the ED QA committee during this time were reviewed. Cases involving a perceived error were referred to a 20-member committee of ED leadership staff, attendings, residents, and nurses for further consensus review. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: EM3s read 92,928 ECGs during the study period. Of the 3,983 total ED QA cases reviewed, errors were identified in 268 (6.7%; 95% CI, 6.0%-7.6%). Four of the 268 errors involved ECG misinterpretation or failure to act on an ECG abnormality by a resident (1.5%; 95% CI, 0.0%-2.9%). CONCLUSION: A small percentage of the cases referred to the QA committee were a result of EM3 misinterpretation of ECGs. The majority of emergency medicine residencies do not include the senior resident as a primary interpreter of ECGs. These findings support the use of EM3s as initial ED ECG interpreters to increase their clinical exposure.

The Ethics of Error in Medicine.

The practice of medicine forces medical practitioners to make difficult and challenging choices on a daily basis. On the one hand we are obligated to cure with every resource available, while on the other hand we put the patient at risk because our treatments are flawed. To understand the ethics of error in medicine, its moral value, and the effects, error must first be defined. However, definition of error remains elusive, and its incidence has been extraordinarily difficult to quantify. Yet, a health care system that acknowledges error as a consequence of normative ethical practice must create systems to minimize error. Error reduction, in turn, should attempt to decrease patient harm and improve the entire health care system. We discuss a number of ethical and moral considerations that arise from practicing medicine despite anticipated error.

Year-to-year trends in emergency medicine morbidity and mortality cases.

BACKGROUND: Morbidity and Mortality (M&M) rounds are peer review conferences during which cases with adverse outcomes and difficult management decisions are presented. Their primary objective is to learn from complications and errors, modify behavior and judgment based on previous experiences, and prevent repetition of errors leading to complications. The objective of this study was to determine if M&M conferences can reduce repetitive error making demonstrated by a shift of the incidence of cases presented at M&M by chief complaint (CC) and experience of attendings. METHODS: All M&M cases from 1/1/2014-12/31/2017 derived from an urban, tertiary referral Emergency Department were reviewed and grouped into 12 different CC categories and by attending years of experience (1-4, 5-9 and 10+). Number and percent of M&M cases by CC and years of attending experience were calculated by year and a chi-squared analysis was performed. RESULTS: 350 M&M cases were presented over the four-year study period. There was a significant difference between CC categories from year-to-year (p < 0.001). Attendings with 1-4 years of experience had the majority of cases (46.3%), while those with 5-9 years had the fewest total cases (15.1%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There was a persistent significant difference across CC categories of M&M cases from year-to-year, with down-trending and up-trending of specific CCs suggesting that M&M presentation may prevent repetitive errors. Newer attendings show increased rates of M&M cases relative to more experienced attendings. There may be a distinctive educational benefit of participation at M&M for attendings with fewer than five years of clinical experience.

Using the Boston Syncope Observation Management Pathway to Reduce Hospital Admission and Adverse Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: In an age of increasing scrutiny of each hospital admission, emergency department (ED) observation has been identified as a low-cost alternative. Prior studies have shown admission rates for syncope in the United States to be as high as 70%. However, the safety and utility of substituting ED observation unit (EDOU) syncope management has not been well studied. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of EDOU for the management of patients presenting to the ED with syncope and its efficacy in reducing hospital admissions. METHODS: This was a prospective before-and-after cohort study of consecutive patients presenting with syncope who were seen in an urban ED and were either admitted to the hospital, discharged, or placed in the EDOU. We first performed an observation study of syncope management and then implemented an ED observation-based management pathway. We identified critical interventions and 30-day outcomes. We compared proportions of admissions and adverse events rates with a chi-squared or Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: In the "before" phase, 570 patients were enrolled, with 334 (59%) admitted and 27 (5%) placed in the EDOU; 3% of patients discharged from the ED had critical interventions within 30 days and 10% returned. After the management pathway was introduced, 489 patients were enrolled; 34% (p<0.001) of pathway patients were admitted while 20% were placed in the EDOU; 3% (p=0.99) of discharged patients had critical interventions at 30 days and 3% returned (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: A focused syncope management pathway effectively reduces hospital admissions and adverse events following discharge and returns to the ED.

Comparison of Emergency Medicine Malpractice Cases Involving Residents to Nonresident Cases.

BACKGROUND: Data are lacking on how emergency medicine (EM) malpractice cases with resident involvement differs from cases that do not name a resident. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to compare malpractice case characteristics in cases where a resident is involved (resident case) to cases that do not involve a resident (nonresident case) and to determine factors that contribute to malpractice cases utilizing EM as a model for malpractice claims across other medical specialties. METHODS: We used data from the Controlled Risk Insurance Company (CRICO) Strategies' division Comparative Benchmarking System (CBS) to analyze open and closed EM cases asserted from 2009 to 2013. The CBS database is a national repository that contains professional liability data on > 400 hospitals and > 165,000 physicians, representing over 30% of all malpractice cases in the United States (>350,000 claims). We compared cases naming residents (either alone or in combination with an attending) to those that did not involve a resident (nonresident cohort). We reported the case statistics, allegation categories, severity scores, procedural data, final diagnoses, and contributing factors. Fisher's exact test or t-test was used for comparisons (alpha set at 0.05). RESULTS: A total of 845 EM cases were identified of which 732 (87%) did not name a resident (nonresident cases), while 113 (13%) included a resident (resident cases). There were higher total incurred losses for nonresident cases. The most frequent allegation categories in both cohorts were "failure or delay in diagnosis/misdiagnosis" and "medical treatment" (nonsurgical procedures or treatment regimens, i.e., central line placement). Allegation categories of safety and security, patient monitoring, hospital policy and procedure, and breach of confidentiality were found in the nonresident cases. Resident cases incurred lower payments on average ($51,163 vs. $156,212 per case). Sixty-six percent (75) of resident versus 57% (415) of nonresident cases were high-severity claims (permanent, grave disability or death; p = 0.05). Procedures involved were identified in 32% (36) of resident and 26% (188) of nonresident cases (p = 0.17). The final diagnoses in resident cases were more often cardiac related (19% [21] vs. 10% [71], p < 0.005) whereas nonresident cases had more orthopedic-related final diagnoses (10% [72] vs. 3% [3], p < 0.01). The most common contributing factors in resident and nonresident cases were clinical judgment (71% vs. 76% [p = 0.24]), communication (27% vs. 30% [p = 0.46]), and documentation (20% vs. 21% [p = 0.95]). Technical skills contributed to 20% (22) of resident cases versus 13% (96) of nonresident cases (p = 0.07) but those procedures involving vascular access (2.7% [3] vs 0.1% [1]) and spinal procedures (3.5% [4] vs. 1.1% [8]) were more prevalent in resident cases (p < 0.05 for each). CONCLUSIONS: There are higher total incurred losses in nonresident cases. There are higher severity scores in resident cases. The overall case profiles, including allegation categories, final diagnoses, and contributing factors between resident and nonresident cases are similar. Cases involving residents are more likely to involve certain technical skills, specifically vascular access and spinal procedures, which may have important implications regarding supervision. Clinical judgment, communication, and documentation are the most prevalent contributing factors in all cases and should be targets for risk reduction strategies.

Emergency department point-of-care ultrasonography improves time to pericardiocentesis for clinically significant effusions.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine the utility of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) to identify and guide treatment of tamponade or clinically significant pericardial effusions in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of non-trauma patients who were diagnosed with large pericardial effusions or tamponade by the ED physician using POCUS. The control group was composed of those patients later diagnosed on the medical wards or incidentally in the ED by other means such as a computed tomography. The following data were abstracted from the patient's file: demographics, medical background, electrocardiogram results, chest radiograph readings, echocardiogram results, and patient outcomes. RESULTS: There were 18 patients in the POCUS arm and 55 in the control group. The POCUS arm had a decreased time to pericardiocentesis (11.3 vs. 70.2 hours, P=0.055) as well as a shorter length of stay (5.1 vs. 7.0 days, P=0.222). A decreased volume of pericardial fluid was drained (661 vs. 826 mL, P=0.139) in the group diagnosed by POCUS. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that POCUS may effectively identify pericardial effusions and guide appropriate treatment, leading to a decreased time to pericardiocentesis and decreased length of hospital stay. Pericardial tamponade or a large pericardial effusion should be considered in all patients presenting to the ED with clinical, radiographic, or electrocardiographic signs of cardiovascular compromise.

Physician Variability in Management of Emergency Department Patients with Chest Pain.

INTRODUCTION: Chest pain is a common emergency department (ED) presentation accounting for 8-10 million visits per year in the United States. Physician-level factors such as risk tolerance are predictive of admission rates. The recent advent of accelerated diagnostic pathways and ED observation units may have an impact in reducing variation in admission rates on the individual physician level. METHODS: We conducted a single-institution retrospective observational study of ED patients with a diagnosis of chest pain as determined by diagnostic code from our hospital administrative database. We included ED visits from 2012 and 2013. Patients with an elevated troponin or an electrocardiogram (ECG) demonstrating an ST elevation myocardial infarction were excluded. Patients were divided into two groups: "admission" (this included observation and inpatients) and "discharged." We stratified physicians by age, gender, residency location, and years since medical school. We controlled for patient- and hospital-related factors including age, gender, race, insurance status, daily ED volume, and lab values. RESULTS: Of 4,577 patients with documented dispositions, 3,252 (70.9%) were either admitted to the hospital or into observation (in an ED observation unit or in the hospital), while 1,333 (29.1%) were discharged. Median number of patients per physician was 132 (interquartile range 89-172). Average admission rate was 73.7±9.5% ranging from 54% to 96%. Of the 3,252 admissions, 2,638 (81.1%) were to observation. There was significant variation in the admission rate at the individual physician level with adjusted odds ratio ranging from 0.42 to 5.8 as compared to the average admission. Among physicians' characteristics, years elapsed since finishing medical school demonstrated a trend towards association with a higher admission probability. CONCLUSION: There is substantial variation among physicians in the management of patients presenting with chest pain, with physician experience playing a role.