We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Emergency department (ED) patients with atrial fibrillation or flutter (AFF) with underlying occult condition such as sepsis or heart failure, and who are managed with rate or rhythm control, have poor prognoses. Such conditions may not be easy to identify early in the ED evaluation when critical treatment decisions are made. We sought to develop a simple decision aid to quickly identify undifferentiated ED AFF patients who are at high risk of acute underlying illness.
Methods
We collected consecutive ED patients with electrocardiogram-proven AFF over a 1-year period and performed a chart review to ascertain demographics, comorbidities, and investigations. The primary outcome was having an acute underlying illness according to prespecified criteria. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with the primary outcome, and developed criteria to identify those with an underlying illness at presentation.
Results
Of 1,083 consecutive undifferentiated ED AFF patients, 400 (36.9%) had an acute underlying illness; they were older with more comorbidities. Modeling demonstrated that three predictors (ambulance arrival; chief complaint of chest pain, dyspnea, or weakness; CHA2DS2-VASc score greater than 2) identified 93% of patients with acute underlying illness (95% confidence interval [CI], 91–96%) with 54% (95% CI, 50–58%) specificity. The decision aid missed 28 patients; (7.0%) simple blood tests and chest radiography identified all within an hour of presentation.
Conclusions
In ED patients with undifferentiated AFF, this simple predictive model rapidly differentiates patients at risk of acute underlying illness, who will likely merit investigations before AFF-specific therapy.
Atrial fibrillation or flutter (AFF) patients with renal impairment have poor long-term prognosis, but their emergency department (ED) management has not been described. We investigated the association of renal impairment upon outcomes after rate or rhythm control (RRC) including ED-based adverse events (AE) and treatment failure.
Methods
This cohort study used an electrocardiogram database from two urban centres to identify consecutive AFF patients and reviewed charts to obtain comorbidities, ED management, including RRC, prespecified AE, and treatment failure. Patients were dichotomized into a normal estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 60 mL/min/1.73 m2) or impaired renal function (“low eGFR”). Primary and secondary outcomes were prespecified AEs and treatment failure, respectively. We calculated 1) adjusted excess AE risk for patients with decreased renal function receiving RRC; and 2) adjusted odds ratio of RRC treatment failure.
Results
Of 1,112 consecutive ED AFF patients, 412 (37.0%) had a low eGFR. Crude AE rates for RRC were 27/238 (11.3%) for patients with normal renal function and 26/103 (25.2%) for patients with low eGFR. For patients with low eGFR receiving RRC, adjusted excess AE risk was 13.7%. (95% CI 1.7 to 25.1%). For patients with low eGFR, adjusted odds ratio for RRC failure was 3.07. (95% CI 1.74 to 5.43)
Conclusions
In this cohort of ED AFF patients receiving RRC, those with low eGFR had significantly increased adjusted excess risk of AE compared with patients with normal renal function. Odds of treatment failure were also significantly increased.
Some centres favour early intervention for ureteral colic while others prefer trial of spontaneous passage, and relative outcomes are poorly described. Calgary and Vancouver have similar populations and physician expertise, but differing approaches to ureteral colic. We studied 60-day hospitalization and intervention rates for patients having a first emergency department (ED) visit for ureteral colic in these diverse systems.
Methods
We used administrative data and structured chart review to study all Vancouver and Calgary patients with an index visit for ureteral colic during 2014. Patient demographics, arrival characteristics and triage category were captured from ED information systems, while ED visits and admissions were captured from linked regional hospital databases. Laboratory results were obtained from electronic health records and stone characteristics were abstracted from diagnostic imaging reports. Our primary outcome was hospitalization or urological intervention from 0 to 60 days. Secondary outcomes included ED revisits, readmissions and rescue interventions. Time to event analysis was conducted and Cox Proportional Hazards modelling was performed to adjust for covariate imbalance.
Results
We studied 3283 patients with CT-defined stones. Patient and stone characteristics were similar for the cities. Hospitalization or intervention occurred in 60.9% of Calgary patients and 31.3% of Vancouver patients (p<0.001). Calgary patients had higher index intervention rates (52.1% v. 7.5%), and experienced more ED revisits and hospital readmissions during follow-up. The data suggest that outcome events were associated with overtreatment of small stones in one city and undertreatment of large stones in the other.
Conclusions
An early interventional approach was associated with higher ED revisit, hospitalization and intervention rates. If these events are markers of patient disability, then a less interventional approach to small stones and earlier definitive management of large stones may reduce system utilization and improve outcomes for patients with acute ureteral colic.
Fee-for-service payment may motivate physicians to see more patients and achieve higher productivity. In 2015, emergency physicians at one Vancouver hospital switched to fee-for-service payment, while those at a sister hospital remained on contract, creating a natural experiment where the compensation method changed, but other factors remained constant. Our hypothesis was that fee-for-service payment would increase physician efficiency and reduce patient wait times.
Methods
This interrupted time series with concurrent control analysed emergency department (ED) performance during a 42-week period, encompassing the intervention (fee for service). Data were aggregated by week and plotted in a time series fashion. We adjusted for autocorrelation and developed general linear regression models to assess level and trend changes. Our primary outcome was the wait time to physician.
Results
Data from 142,361 ED visits were analysed. Baseline wait times rose at both sites during the pre-intervention phase. Immediately post-intervention, the median wait time increased by 2.4 minutes at the control site and fell by 7.2 minutes at the intervention site (difference=9.6 minutes; 95% confidence interval, 2.9-16.4; p=0.007). The wait time trend (slope) subsequently deteriorated by 0.5 minutes per week at the intervention site relative to the expected counterfactual (p for the trend difference=0.07). By the end of the study, cross-site differences had not changed significantly from baseline.
Conclusion
Fee-for-service payment was associated with a 9.6-minute (24%) reduction in wait time, compatible with an extrinsic motivational effect; however, this was not sustained, and the intervention had no impact on other operational parameters studied. Physician compensation is an important policy issue but may not be a primary determinant of ED operational efficiency.
An evidence-based emergency department (ED) atrial fibrillation and flutter (AFF) pathway was developed to improve care. The primary objective was to measure rates of new anticoagulation (AC) on ED discharge for AFF patients who were not AC correctly upon presentation.
Methods
This is a pre-post evaluation from April to December 2013 measuring the impact of our pathway on rates of new AC and other performance measures in patients with uncomplicated AFF solely managed by emergency physicians. A standardized chart review identified demographics, comorbidities, and ED treatments. The primary outcome was the rate of new AC. Secondary outcomes were ED length of stay (LOS), referrals to AFF clinic, ED revisit rates, and 30-day rates of return visits for congestive heart failure (CHF), stroke, major bleeding, and death.
Results
ED AFF patients totalling 301 (129 pre-pathway [PRE]; 172 post-pathway [POST]) were included; baseline demographics were similar between groups. The rates of AC at ED presentation were 18.6% (PRE) and 19.7% (POST). The rates of new AC on ED discharge were 48.6 % PRE (95% confidence interval [CI] 42.1%-55.1%) and 70.2% POST (62.1%-78.3%) (20.6% [p<0.01; 15.1-26.3]). Median ED LOS decreased from 262 to 218 minutes (44 minutes [p<0.03; 36.2-51.8]). Thirty-day rates of ED revisits for CHF decreased from 13.2% to 2.3% (10.9%; p<0.01; 8.1%-13.7%), and rates of other measures were similar.
Conclusions
The evidence-based pathway led to an improvement in the rate of patients with new AC upon discharge, a reduction in ED LOS, and decreased revisit rates for CHF.
Patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) (deep vein thrombosis [DVT] and pulmonary embolism [PE]) are commonly treated as outpatients. Traditionally, patients are anticoagulated with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and warfarin, resulting in return visits to the ED. The direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) medications do not require therapeutic monitoring or repeat visits; however, they are more expensive. This study compared health costs, from the hospital and patient perspectives, between traditional versus DOAC therapy.
Methods
A chart review of VTE cases at two tertiary, urban hospitals from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012 was performed to capture historical practice in VTE management, using LMWH/warfarin. This historical data were compared against data derived from clinical trials, where a DOAC was used. Cost minimization analyses comparing the two modes of anticoagulation were completed from hospital and patient perspectives.
Results
Of the 207 cases in the cohort, only 130 (63.2%) were therapeutically anticoagulated (international normalized ratio 2.0–3.0) at emergency department (ED) discharge; patients returned for a mean of 7.18 (range: 1–21) visits. Twenty-one (10%) were admitted to the hospital; 4 (1.9%) were related to VTE or anticoagulation complications. From a hospital perspective, a DOAC (in this case, rivaroxaban) had a total cost avoidance of $1,488.04 per VTE event, per patient. From a patient perspective, it would cost an additional $204.10 to $349.04 over 6 months, assuming no reimbursement.
Conclusions
VTE management in the ED has opportunities for improvement. A DOAC is a viable and cost-effective strategy for VTE treatment from a hospital perspective and, depending on patient characteristics and values, may also be an appropriate and cost-effective option from a patient perspective.
Requests for specialty consultation are common in emergency departments (EDs) and often contribute to delays in throughput. Our objectives were to describe the contribution of the consultation process to total ED length of stay (LOS) through novel metrics and illustrate causes of delay.
Methods:
We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study at three Canadian tertiary care centres. Adult ED patients with requested medical/surgical consultations were enrolled. We created original metric intervals: total consultation time (TCT) defined as the interval from the initial consultation request to the disposition decision, consult response time (CRT) from the request to the consultant arrival, and decision-making interval (DMI) from arrival to the disposition decision. The consultation impact index (CII) was defined as the percentage of ED LOS consumed by the TCT. Reasons for delay were documented if time stamps exceeded preset benchmarks.
Results:
The median TCT for 285 patients was 138 minutes (interquartile range [IQR]: 82–239 minutes), whereas the median total ED LOS was 778 minutes (IQR 485–1,274 minutes). The median CRT was 55 minutes (IQR 21–115 minutes), and the median DMI was 58 minutes (IQR 25–126 minutes). The CII measured 26% (95% CI 23–28). Major contributors to consultation delay included urgent ward issues, simultaneous ED consultations, and the need for additional laboratory or radiographic investigations.
Conclusion:
The consultation process is highly variable and has an important impact on ED LOS. We describe novel measures related to consultation performance and provide an analysis of what causes delays. These results can be used to seek improvements in the consulting process.
Current guidelines emphasize that emergency department (ED) patients at low risk for potential ischemic chest pain cannot be discharged without extensive investigations or hospitalization to minimize the risk of missing acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We sought to derive and validate a prediction rule that permitted 20 to 30% of ED patients without ACS safely to be discharged within 2 hours without
further provocative cardiac testing.
Methods:
This prospective cohort study enrolled 1,669 chest pain patients in two blocks in 2000–2003 (development cohort) and 2006 (validation cohort). The primary outcome was 30-day ACS diagnosis. A recursive partitioning model incorporated reliable and predictive cardiac risk factors, pain characteristics, electrocardiographic findings, and cardiac biomarker results.
Results:
In the derivation cohort, 165 of 763 patients (21.6%) had a 30-day ACS diagnosis. The derived prediction rule was 100.0% sensitive and 18.6% specific. In the validation cohort, 119 of 906 patients (13.1%) had ACS, and the prediction rule was 99.2% sensitive (95% CI 95.4–100.0) and 23.4% specific (95% CI 20.6–26.5). Patients have a very low ACS risk if arrival and 2-hour troponin levels are normal, the initial electrocardiogram is nonischemic, there is no history of ACS or nitrate use, age is < 50 years, and defined pain characteristics are met. The validation of the rule was limited by the lack of consistency in data capture, incomplete follow-up, and lack of evaluation of the accuracy, comfort, and clinical sensibility of this clinical decision rule.
Conclusion:
The Vancouver Chest Pain Rule may identify a cohort of ED chest pain patients who can be safely
discharged within 2 hours without provocative cardiac testing. Further validation across other centres with consistent application and comprehensive and uniform follow-up of all eligible and enrolled patients, in addition to measuring and reporting the accuracy of and comfort level with applying the rule and the clinical sensibility, should be completed prior to adoption and implementation.
Cardiac troponin elevation portends a worse prognosis in diverse patient populations. The significance of troponin elevation in patients discharged from emergency departments (EDs)without inpatient admission is notwell known.
Methods:
Patients without a diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome discharged fromtwo EDs between April 1, 2006, and December 31, 2007, with an abnormal cardiac troponin (troponin positive [TP]) were compared to a troponin-negative (TN) cohort matched for age, sex, and primary discharge diagnosis. Outcomes were obtained by linking with a regional ED and a provincial vital statistics database and adjusted for the following: estimated glomerular filtration rate, do-not-resuscitate status, history of coronary artery disease, Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale, and left ventricular hypertrophy on electrocardiography. The primary outcome was a composite of death or admission to hospital within 1 year.
Results:
Our total cohort (n 5 344) consisted of 172 TP and 172 TN patients. In the univariate analysis, TP patients had a higher rate of the primary outcome (OR 3.2, 95% CI 2.1–5.0, p < 0.001) and both of its components (p < 0.001). After adjusting for covariates, positive troponin remained an independent predictor of the primary outcome (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.3–3.4, p 5 0.005) and inpatient admission (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.2–3.4, p 5 0.006). There was no significant difference in death (OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.6–2.9, p 5 0.5) after adjustment.
Conclusions:
A positive troponin assay during ED stay in discharged patients is an independent marker for risk of subsequent admission. Our findings suggest that the prognostic power of an abnormal troponin extends to patients discharged from the ED.
Injection drug users (IDUs) often undergo procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) as part of emergency department (ED) treatment. We compared adverse events (AEs) using a variety of sedation regimens.
Methods:
This was a retrospective analysis of a PSA safety audit in two urban EDs. Consecutive self-reported IDUs were identified, and structured data describing comorbidities, vital signs, sedation regimens (propofol [P], propofol-fentanyl [PF], fentanyl-midazolam [FM], ketofol [1:1 ketamine:propofol, KF], and ketamine-propofol [KP]) and AEs were collected. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients in each sedation group having an AE; the secondary outcome was the proportion of patients having a cardiovascular or respiratory AE.
Results:
Data were collected on 276 IDUs (78 P, 82 PF, 65 FM, 25 KF, and 26 KP), and 18 patients had AEs (6.5%, 95% CI 4.0–10.3). The AE rates were 0.0%, 8.5%, 9.2%, 12.0%, and 7.6%, respectively, with propofol having a significantly lower rate (Pearson coefficient 14.9, p = 0.007). The cardiovascular/respiratory AE rates were significantly different as well, with P, KP, and KF having the lowest rates (Pearson coefficient 13.3, p = 0.01).
Conclusions:
For IDU PSA, the overall AE rate was 6.5%, and propofol appeared to have a significantly lower rate.
Injection drug users (IDUs) often undergo procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department (ED). We compared adverse events (AEs) for IDUs to those for non-IDUs receiving PSA for incision and drainage of cutaneous abscesses.
Methods:
This was a retrospective analysis of a PSA safety audit. IDU status was prospectively documented among consecutive patients undergoing PSA at two urban EDs. Structured data describing comorbidities, vital signs, sedation regimens, and adverse events were collected. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients in each group experiencing an AE, whereas the secondary outcomes included recovery times.
Results:
Of 525 consecutive patients receiving PSA for incision and drainage of an abscess, 244 were deemed IDUs and 281 non-IDUs. IDUs received higher doses of sedatives and analgesics, and 14 experienced AEs (5.7%), whereas 10 non-IDUs had AEs (3.6%), for a risk difference of 2.1% (95% CI -1.8, 6.5). Median recovery times were 18 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 10-36) for IDUs and 12 minutes (IQR 7-19) for non-IDUs, for a difference of 6 minutes (95% CI 2-9 minutes). Median sedation times were also longer in IDUs, for a difference of 6 minutes (95% CI 5-10 minutes). Of 20 IDU patients and 1 non-IDU patient admitted to hospital, none had experienced an AE related to PSA.
Conclusions:
For ED patients requiring PSA for incision and drainage, IDUs had an AE rate similar to that of non-IDUs but longer sedation and recovery times. In experienced hands, PSA may be as safe in IDUs as in patients who do not use injection drugs.
Managers of emergency departments (EDs), governments and researchers would benefit from reliable data sets that characterize use of EDs. Although Canadian ED lists for chief complaints and triage acuity exist, no such list exists for diagnosis classification. This study was aimed at developing a standardized Canadian Emergency Department Diagnosis Shortlist (CED-DxS), as a subset of the full International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision, with Canadian Enhancement (ICD-10-CA).
Methods:
Emergency physicians from across Canada participated in the revision of the ICD-10-CA through 2 rounds of the modified Delphi method. We randomly assigned chapters from the ICD-10-CA (approximately 3000 diagnoses) to reviewers, who rated the importance of including each diagnosis in the ED-specific diagnosis list. If 80% or more of the reviewers agreed on the importance of a diagnosis, it was retained for the final revision. The retained diagnoses were further aggregated and adjusted, thus creating the CED-DxS.
Results:
Of the 83 reviewers, 76% were emergency medicine (EM)–trained physicians with an average of 12 years of experience in EM, and 92% were affiliated with a university teaching hospital. The modified Delphi process and further adjustments resulted in the creation of the CED-DxS, containing 837 items. The chapter with the largest number of retained diagnoses was injury and poisoning (n = 292), followed by gastrointestinal (n = 59), musculoskeletal (n = 55) and infectious disease (n = 42). Chapters with the lowest number retained were neoplasm (n = 18) and pregnancy (n = 12).
Conclusion:
We report the creation of the uniform CED-DxS, tailored for Canadian EDs. The addition of ED diagnoses to existing standardized parameters for the ED will contribute to homogeneity of data across the country.
Our primary objective was to determine the effectiveness of 3 immobilization methods (circumferential casting [CC], volar–dorsal splinting [VDS] and modified sugar-tong [MST] splinting) in maintaining the position of displaced distal radius fractures after successful closed reduction. Our secondary objective was to assess long-term functional outcomes associated with immobilization with fibreglass splinting versus standard CC in patients maintaining initial nonoperative reductions.
Methods:
We conducted a prospective randomized single-blind controlled trial in patients over 18 years of age who presented to the emergency department with a displaced fracture of the distal radius requiring closed reduction. The primary outcome was loss of reduction (defined as radiologic slippage or the need for surgical fixation during the 3–4 week primary immobilization period after initial successful reduction). Secondary outcomes included DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) score, return to work, activities of daily living, wrist pain, range of motion and grip strength assessed at 8 weeks and 6 months.
Results:
Thirty participants were randomly assigned to receive MST splinting, 31 to receive VDS and 40 to receive CC. Baseline characteristics were similar among groups. Radiographic loss of reduction occurred in 16% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.1%–28.9%) of participants in the VDS group, 20% (95% CI 7.6%–32.4%) in the CC group and 30% (95% CI 13.6°%–46.4°%) in the MST splinting group (p = 0.17). Based on multivariate analysis of variance, functional outcomes at 8 weeks were similar among groups (p = 0.89). DASH scores at 8 weeks and 6 months were similar among groups, based on 1-way analysis of variance (p > 0.25).
Conclusion:
Rates of loss in anatomic position were not statistically significant among the 3 types of dressings used. However, there was a clinically important trend of increased loss of reduction with the use of MST splinting. Functional outcomes at 8 weeks and 6 months were not significantly different between CC, VDS and MDS splinting. Ease of application and familiarity with use should guide clinical decisions when choosing a dressing type for displaced Colles fractures.
We sought to examine scholarly outcomes of the projects receiving research grants from the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) during the first 10 years of national funding (i.e., between 1996 and 2005).
Methods:
We sent email surveys to 62 emergency medicine (EM) researchers who received funding from CAEP. We focused our data collection on grant deliverables and opinions using a 1–7 Likert scale with regard to the value of the award.
Results:
Fifty-eight recipients responded to our survey. Grants were most commonly awarded to residents (21 [36%]), followed by senior (16 [28%]) and junior (13 [22%]) emergency staff. Twenty-six applicants from Ontario and 11 from Quebec received the majority of the grants. Overall, 51 projects were completed at the time of contact and, from these, 39 manuscripts were published or in press. Abstract presentations were more common, with a median of 2 abstracts presented per completed project. Abstract presentations for the completed projects were documented locally (23), nationally (39) and internationally (37). Overall, 19 projects received additional funding. The median amount funded was Can$4700 with an interquartile range of $3250–$5000. Respondents felt CAEP funding was critical to completing their projects and felt strongly that dedicated EM research funding should be continued to stimulate productivity.
Conclusion:
Overall, the CAEP Research Grants Competition has produced impressive results. Despite the small sums available, the grants have been important for ensuring study completion and for securing additional funding. CAEP and similar EM organizations need to develop a more robust funding approach so that larger grant awards and more researchers can be supported on an annual basis.
We sought to estimate the period prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI) and evaluate risk factors for MRSA SSTI in an emergency department (ED) population.
Methods:
We carried out a cohort study with a nested case–control design. Patients presenting to our ED with a wound culture and a discharge diagnosis of SSTI between January 2003 and September 2004 were dichotomized as MRSA positive or negative. Fifty patients with MRSA SSTI matched by calendar time to 100 controls with MRSA-negative SSTI had risk factors assessed using multivariate conditional logistic regression.
Results:
Period prevalence of MRSA SSTI was 54.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 50.2%–59.4%). The monthly period prevalence increased from 21% in January 2003 to 68% in September 2004 (p < 0.01). Risk factors for MRSA SSTI were injection drug use (IDU) (odds ratio [OR] 4.6, 95% CI 1.4–16.1), previous MRSA infection and colonization (OR 6.4, 95% CI 2.1–19.8), antibiotics in 8 weeks preceding index visit (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.2–8.1), diabetes mellitus (OR 4.1, 95% CI 1.4–12.1), abscess (OR 5.6, 95% CI 1.8–17.1) and admission to hospital in previous 12 months (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.1–11.2).
Conclusion:
The period prevalence of MRSA SSTI between January 2003 and September 2004 was 54.8% at our institution. There was a marked increase in the monthly period prevalence from the beginning to the end of the study. Risk factors are IDU, previous MRSA infection and colonization, prescriptions for antibiotics in previous 8 weeks and admission to hospital in the preceding 12 months. On the basis of local prevalence and risk factor patterns, emergency physicians should consider MRSA as a causative agent for SSTI.