Monas, Jessica

Pregnancy induces significant physiologic changes that impact the cardiovascular system, potentially exacerbating pre-existing cardiac conditions or precipitating new illnesses. Pregnant patients with cardiac emergencies pose unique challenges, as standard interventions may pose risks to the developing fetus. This article aims to enhance emergency physicians’ confidence in managing pregnancy-related cardiac emergencies by providing a structured approach to initial evaluation and stabilization. We review eight common categories of pregnancy-associated cardiac illness: gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia, cardiomyopathy, arrhythmias, valvular disease, aortopathies, congenital heart disease and pulmonary hypertension, coronary disease, and anticoagulation-related complications. For each condition, we summarize relevant pregnancy-specific pathophysiology and outline evidence-based, personalized emergency management strategies.

While congenital heart disease historically was a pathology primarily restricted to specialized pediatric centers, advances in technology have dramatically increased the number of people living into adulthood, the number of complications faced by these patients, and the number of patients visiting non-specialized emergency departments for these concerns. Clinicians need to be aware of the issues specific to patients’ individual congenital defects but also have an understanding of how typical cardiac pathology may manifest in this special group of patients. This manuscript attempts to provide an overview of this diverse but increasingly common group of adult patients with congenital heart diseases, including a review of their anatomical variants, the complications they face at the highest rates, and ways that emergency physicians may need to manage these patients differently to avoid causing harm.

Introduction. Urinary tract infections (UTIs) and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) can have overlapping signs, symptoms, and findings on urinalysis. Our objective was to determine if patient or provider demographics are associated with differences in the diagnosis and management of UTIs and STIs in the emergency department (ED). Methods. We analyzed 38,062 ED patient encounters from a single healthcare system between April 18, 2014, and March 7, 2017. All encounters were women ≥18 years of age and not admitted to the hospital. We performed logistic regression using patient and provider demographics, laboratory testing results, ED triage data, and ED diagnoses. Results. The patient’s age, race, and marital status were not associated with having an ED UTI diagnosis with a urine culture ≥10,000 colony forming units (CFUs)/mL (vs. <10,000 CFUs/mL). Patient race and the sex of the ED provider were not associated with differences in empiric antibiotic treatment for gonorrhea and chlamydia during the ED encounter. Patient’s race and the sex of the ED provider were also not associated with discordance between empiric antibiotic therapy given in the ED and the results of gonorrhea and chlamydia tests that resulted following the ED encounter. Conclusion. In our multivariate analyses, we did not observe that the patient’s race resulted in significant differences in the diagnosis of UTIs with bacteriuria ≥10,000 CFU/mL or differences in the empiric treatment of gonorrhea and chlamydia infections among those tested for the infection in the ED. The patient’s age and marital status, but not the provider’s sex, were significantly associated with differences in the management of gonorrhea and chlamydia.

Emergency physician empathy and communication is increasingly important and influences patient satisfaction. This study investigated if there is a need for improvement in provider empathy and communication in our emergency department and what areas could be targeted for future improvement. Patients cared for by emergency physicians with the lowest satisfaction scores were surveyed within 1 week of discharge. Patients rated their emergency provider’s empathy and communication and provided feedback on the patient–provider interaction. Compared to survey responses nationally, our providers fell between the 10th and 25th percentiles for all questions, except question 5 (making a plan of action with [the patient]) which was between the 5th and 10th percentile. Areas most frequently cited for improvement were “wanting to know why” (N = 30), “time is short” (N = 15), and “listen to the patient” (N = 13). Survey percentiles and open-ended suggestions demonstrate a need for providers to give thorough explanations, spend more time with the patient, and demonstrate active listening. These themes can be used to strengthen the provider–patient relationship.