Barriers to medication adherence in the emergency department: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Medication nonadherence is a common problem that leads to increased healthcare utilization. It is unclear how patient insight and attitude towards their medications affect adherence in the ED. Furthermore, it is unclear how perceived medication importance differs between patients and ED physicians. METHODS: We conducted a cross sectional study of adult patients presenting to 2 academic emergency departments from April 2015 to October 2016. Demographic data were collected and questions were asked regarding medication knowledge, perceived importance, and adherence. We also compared perceived importance of medications between patients and two physician raters. Inter-rater agreement was reported as raw percentages, and categorical data were compared using chi-squared analysis. RESULTS: We identified 1268 patients, representing 4634 individual medications. We identified a significant association between knowledge of medications and perceived importance (p < .05). Secondarily, importance level was highly associated with medication adherence (p < .05). When ranking those medications that were considered "least" and "most" important among each patient's med list, our two physicians agreed with patients only 34.1% and 37% of the time respectively, as opposed to 62% and 62.8% agreement between each other. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that there is a difference in perceived medication importance between ED physicians and ED patients. Knowledge of a medication's purpose is significantly associated with perceived importance, while this importance appears to be significantly associated with compliance. These results suggest that concerted efforts by ED physicians and staff to educate patients on the utility and importance of their medications may improve adherence.

Large Cerebellar Stroke in a Young COVID-19-Positive Patient: Case Report.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), most frequently presents with respiratory symptoms, such as fever, dyspnea, shortness of breath, cough, or myalgias. There is now a growing body of evidence that demonstrates that severe SARS-CoV-2 infections can develop clinically significant coagulopathy, inflammation, and cardiomyopathy, which have been implicated in COVID-19-associated cerebrovascular accidents (CVAs). CASE REPORT: We report an uncommon presentation of a 32-year-old man who sustained a large vessel cerebellar stroke associated with a severe COVID-19 infection. He presented with a headache, worse than his usual migraine, dizziness, rotary nystagmus, and dysmetria on examination, but had no respiratory symptoms initially. He was not a candidate for thrombolytic therapy or endovascular therapy and was managed with clopidogrel, aspirin, and atorvastatin. During hospital admission he developed COVID-19-related hypoxia and pneumonia, but ultimately he was discharged to home rehabilitation. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: We present this case to increase awareness among emergency physicians of the growing number of reports of neurologic and vascular complications, such as ischemic CVAs, in otherwise healthy individuals who are diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. A brief review of the current literature will help elucidate possible mechanisms, risk factors, and current treatments for CVA associated with SARS-CoV-2.

Cardiology consultation reduces provocative testing rates in an ED observation unit.

BACKGROUND: In evaluating patients with chest pain, emergency department observation units (EDOUs) may use a staffing model in which emergency physicians determine patient testing (EP model) or a model similar to a chest pain unit (CPU) in which cardiologists determine provocative testing (CPU model). METHODS: We performed a prospective study with 30-day telephone follow-up for all chest pain patients placed in our EDOU. Halfway through the study period, our EDOU transitioned from an EP model to a CPU model. We compared provocative testing rates and outcomes between the 2 models. RESULTS: Over the 34-month study period, our EDOU evaluated 1190 patients for chest pain. Patients placed in the EDOU during the 17-month CPU model were more likely to be moderate risk (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction score 3-5) than those during the 17-month EP model: 24.9% vs 18.8%, P = .011. Despite this difference, rates of provocative testing (stress testing or coronary computed tomography) were lower during the CPU model: 47.1% vs 56.5%, P = .001. This reduction was particularly evident among low-risk patients (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction score 0-2): 49.8% vs 58.1%, P = .011. Rates of myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention, or coronary artery bypass graft were similar between the 2 groups (2.8% vs 3.2%, P = .140). We noted no significant events or missed diagnoses in either group during the 30-day follow-up. CONCLUSION: An EDOU model that used mandatory cardiology consultation resulted in decreased provocative testing, particularly among low-risk chest pain patients. Future research should explore the cost-effectiveness of this model.

Significance of an Indeterminate Troponin I in Patients Evaluated for Chest Pain in an Emergency Department Observation Unit.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that patients with an indeterminate troponin I (TnI) in the emergency department (ED) are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction (MI). The role of the ED observation unit (EDOU) in the evaluation of these patients is unclear. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the risk of MI and revascularization in chest pain patients with an indeterminate TnI in the ED, who were placed in an EDOU. METHODS: We performed a prospective evaluation with 30-day follow-up for all chest pain patients placed in the University of Utah EDOU between June 1, 2009 and May 31, 2012. The EDOU excludes patients with a positive TnI, significant electrocardiogram changes, or active chest pain; however, the EDOU is utilized for further evaluation of patients who have an initial indeterminate TnI (0.06 ng/mL-0.49 ng/mL) with serial TnI measurements, cardiology consult, and potential provocative testing. We identified all patients who had an indeterminate TnI on initial testing in the ED. Primary outcomes were MI, revascularization with cardiac stent or coronary artery bypass graft, and death. RESULTS: We evaluated 1276 chest pain patients in the EDOU over the 3-year study period (average age: 54.1 years, 54% female). Fifty-eight patients (4.5%) had an initial indeterminate TnI. There were no deaths or adverse outcomes in the EDOU among those with an indeterminate TnI, and none of these patients developed a positive TnI during their hospital stay or 30-day follow-up. Patients with an indeterminate TnI had a higher rate of inpatient admission from the EDOU (24.1% vs. 10.3%; P=0.001). Among those with an indeterminate TnI, 8.6% underwent revascularization, while the rate of revascularization or MI was 2.9% among those who did not have an initial indeterminate TnI (P=0.032). CONCLUSION: Patients evaluated in our EDOU for chest pain with an initial indeterminate TnI did not develop subsequent MI. However, these patients had an increased rate of revascularization and inpatient admission compared with controls. While our experience suggests that patients with an indeterminate TnI may be safely evaluated in an observation setting, EDOUs which treat only low-risk chest pain patients may wish to recommend inpatient admission for this patient group.