Are medical history data fit for risk stratification of patients with chest pain in emergency care? Comparing data collected from patients using computerized history taking with data documented by physicians in the electronic health record in the CLEOS-CPDS prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: In acute chest pain management, risk stratification tools, including medical history, are recommended. We compared the fraction of patients with sufficient clinical data obtained using computerized history taking software (CHT) versus physician-acquired medical history to calculate established risk scores and assessed the patient-by-patient agreement between these 2 ways of obtaining medical history information. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of clinically stable patients aged ≥ 18 years presenting to the emergency department (ED) at Danderyd University Hospital (Stockholm, Sweden) in 2017-2019 with acute chest pain and non-diagnostic ECG and serum markers. Medical histories were self-reported using CHT on a tablet. Observations on discrete variables in the risk scores were extracted from electronic health records (EHR) and the CHT database. The patient-by-patient agreement was described by Cohen's kappa statistics. RESULTS: Of the total 1000 patients included (mean age 55.3 ± 17.4 years; 54% women), HEART score, EDACS, and T-MACS could be calculated in 75%, 74%, and 83% by CHT and in 31%, 7%, and 25% by EHR, respectively. The agreement between CHT and EHR was slight to moderate (kappa 0.19-0.70) for chest pain characteristics and moderate to almost perfect (kappa 0.55-0.91) for risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: CHT can acquire and document data for chest pain risk stratification in most ED patients using established risk scores, achieving this goal for a substantially larger number of patients, as compared to EHR data. The agreement between CHT and physician-acquired history taking is high for traditional risk factors and lower for chest pain characteristics. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03439449.

[More coronary computed tomography angiographies and less exercise electrocardiograms in patients under investigation for coronary artery disease?] / DT kranskärl bör användas oftare vid misstänkt kranskärlssjukdom.

Chronic coronary syndrome is a clinical diagnosis based on medical history and risk factors. To confirm diagnosis, an anatomical or functional assessment is recommended. Selection of diagnostic test is guided by clinical likelihood, patient characteristics, local expertise and availability. If the likelihood is low to intermediate, coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is recommended; if intermediate to high, a functional non-invasive test, such as stress echocardiography, is recommended. As compared with other non-invasive diagnostic tests, exercise electrocardiogram has the lowest sensitivity and is only recommended when other imaging diagnostic tests are unavailable. The availability of CCTA is unequal and inadequate in most parts of Sweden. Efforts to increase the availability are called for.

User experience of self-reported computerized medical history taking for acute chest pain: The Clinical Expert Operating System Chest Pain Danderyd Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Chest pain is one of the most common complaints in emergency departments (EDs). Self-reported computerized history taking (CHT) programmes can be used for interpretation of the clinical significance of medical information coming directly from patients. The adoption of CHT in clinical practice depends on reactions and attitudes to the technology from patients and their belief that the technology will have benefits for their medical care. The study objective was to explore the user experience of the self-reported CHT programme Clinical Expert Operating System (CLEOS) in the setting of patients visiting an ED for acute chest pain. METHODS: This qualitative interview study is part of the ongoing CLEOS-Chest Pain Danderyd Study. A subset (n = 84) of the larger sample who had taken part in self-reported history taking during waiting times at the ED were contacted by telephone and n = 54 (64%) accepted participation. An interview guide with open-ended questions was used and the text was analysed using directed content analysis. RESULTS: The patients' experiences of the CLEOS programme were overall positive although some perceived it as extensive. The programme was well accepted and despite the busy environment, patients were highly motivated and deemed it helpful to make a diagnosis. Six categories of user experience emerged: The clinical context, The individual context, Time aspect, Acceptability of the programme, Usability of the programme and Perceptions of usefulness in a clinical setting. CONCLUSIONS: The programme was well accepted by most patients in the stressful environment at ED although some found it difficult to answer all the questions. Adjustments to the extent of an interview to better suit the context of the clinical use should be a future development of the programme. The findings suggest that CHT programmes can be integrated as a standard process for collecting self-reported medical history data in the ED setting.

Computerized history-taking improves data quality for clinical decision-making-Comparison of EHR and computer-acquired history data in patients with chest pain.

Patients' medical histories are the salient dataset for diagnosis. Prior work shows consistently, however, that medical history-taking by physicians generally is incomplete and not accurate. Such findings suggest that methods to improve the completeness and accuracy of medical history data could have clinical value. We address this issue with expert system software to enable automated history-taking by computers interacting directly with patients, i.e. computerized history-taking (CHT). Here we compare the completeness and accuracy of medical history data collected and recorded by physicians in electronic health records (EHR) with data collected by CHT for patients presenting to an emergency room with acute chest pain. Physician history-taking and CHT occurred at the same ED visit for all patients. CHT almost always preceded examination by a physician. Data fields analyzed were relevant to the differential diagnosis of chest pain and comprised information obtainable only by interviewing patients. Measures of data quality were completeness and consistency of negative and positive findings in EHR as compared with CHT datasets. Data significant for the differential of chest pain was missing randomly in all EHRs across all data items analyzed so that the dimensionality of EHR data was limited. CHT files were near complete for all data elements reviewed. Separate from the incompleteness of EHR data, there were frequent factual inconsistencies between EHR and CHT data across all data elements. EHR data did not contain representations of symptoms that were consistent with those reported by patients during CHT. Trial registration: This study is registered at https://www.clinicaltrials.gov (unique identifier: NCT03439449).

Use of Self-Reported Computerized Medical History Taking for Acute Chest Pain in the Emergency Department - the Clinical Expert Operating System Chest Pain Danderyd Study (CLEOS-CPDS): Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Chest pain is one of the most common chief complaints in emergency departments (EDs). Collecting an adequate medical history is challenging but essential in order to use recommended risk scores such as the HEART score (based on history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, and troponin). Self-reported computerized history taking (CHT) is a novel method to collect structured medical history data directly from the patient through a digital device. CHT is rarely used in clinical practice, and there is a lack of evidence for utility in an acute setting. OBJECTIVE: This substudy of the Clinical Expert Operating System Chest Pain Danderyd Study (CLEOS-CPDS) aimed to evaluate whether patients with acute chest pain can interact effectively with CHT in the ED. METHODS: Prospective cohort study on self-reported medical histories collected from acute chest pain patients using a CHT program on a tablet. Clinically stable patients aged 18 years and older with a chief complaint of chest pain, fluency in Swedish, and a nondiagnostic electrocardiogram or serum markers for acute coronary syndrome were eligible for inclusion. Patients unable to carry out an interview with CHT (eg, inadequate eyesight, confusion or agitation) were excluded. Effectiveness was assessed as the proportion of patients completing the interview and the time required in order to collect a medical history sufficient for cardiovascular risk stratification according to HEART score. RESULTS: During 2017-2018, 500 participants were consecutively enrolled. The age and sex distribution (mean 54.3, SD 17.0 years; 213/500, 42.6% women) was similar to that of the general chest pain population (mean 57.5, SD 19.2 years; 49.6% women). Common reasons for noninclusion were language issues (182/1000, 18.2%), fatigue (158/1000, 15.8%), and inability to use a tablet (152/1000, 15.2%). Sufficient data to calculate HEART score were collected in 70.4% (352/500) of the patients. Key modules for chief complaint, cardiovascular history, and respiratory history were completed by 408 (81.6%), 339 (67.8%), and 291 (58.2%) of the 500 participants, respectively, while 148 (29.6%) completed the entire interview (in all 14 modules). Factors associated with completeness were age 18-69 years (all key modules: Ps<.001), male sex (cardiovascular: P=.04), active workers (all key modules: Ps<.005), not arriving by ambulance (chief complaint: P=.03; cardiovascular: P=.045), and ongoing chest pain (complete interview: P=.002). The median time to collect HEART score data was 23 (IQR 18-31) minutes and to complete an interview was 64 (IQR 53-77) minutes. The main reasons for discontinuing the interview prior to completion (n=352) were discharge from the ED (101, 28.7%) and tiredness (95, 27.0%). CONCLUSIONS: A majority of patients with acute chest pain can interact effectively with CHT on a tablet in the ED to provide sufficient data for risk stratification with a well-established risk score. The utility was somewhat lower in patients 70 years and older, in patients arriving by ambulance, and in patients without ongoing chest pain. Further studies are warranted to assess whether CHT can contribute to improved management and prognosis in this large patient group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03439449; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03439449. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031871.

[New ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes - updated national guidelines are called for]. / Nya ESC-råd om hjärtinfarkt ­ behov av nationell uppdatering.

The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has launched new guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation where individualized antithrombotic therapy is highlighted. ESC guidelines are valuable, but not uncontroversial as the authors usually report extensive conflict of interests and the organization is to a great extent financed by industry. The scientific evidence for the recommendations to consider prasugrel over ticagrelor and to avoid pretreatment with P2Y12 inhibitors are questioned. Updated national guidelines are called for in order to maintain our world-class cardiac care.

A prospective cohort study of self-reported computerised medical history taking for acute chest pain: protocol of the CLEOS-Chest Pain Danderyd Study (CLEOS-CPDS).

INTRODUCTION: Management of acute chest pain focuses on diagnosis or safe rule-out of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We aim to determine the additional value of self-reported computerised history taking (CHT). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Prospective cohort study design with self-reported, medical histories collected by a CHT programme (Clinical Expert Operating System, CLEOS) using a tablet. Women and men presenting with acute chest pain to the emergency department at Danderyd University Hospital (Stockholm, Sweden) are eligible. CHT will be compared with standard history taking for completeness of data required to calculate ACS risk scores such as History, ECG, Age, Risk factors and Troponin (HEART), Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE), and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI). Clinical outcomes will be extracted from hospital electronic health records and national registries. The CLEOS-Chest Pain Danderyd Study project includes (1) a feasibility study of CHT, (2) a validation study of CHT as compared with standard history taking, (3) a paired diagnostic accuracy study using data from CHT and established risk scores, (4) a clinical utility study to evaluate the impact of CHT on the management of chest pain and the use of resources, and (5) data mining, aiming to generate an improved risk score for ACS. Primary outcomes will be analysed after 1000 patients, but to allow for subgroup analysis, the study intends to recruit 2000 or more patients. This ongoing project may lead to new and more effective ways for collecting thorough, accurate medical histories with important implications for clinical practice. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been reviewed and approved by the Stockholm Regional Ethical Committee (now Swedish Ethical Review Authority). Results will be published, regardless of the outcome, in peer-reviewed international scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study is registered at https://www.clinicaltrials.gov (unique identifier: NCT03439449).