Probst, Marc A.

AbstractThis first Guideline for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE‐1) from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine is on the topic: Recurrent, Low‐risk Chest Pain in the Emergency Department. The multidisciplinary guideline panel used The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding eight priority questions for adult patients with recurrent, low‐risk chest pain and have derived the following evidence based recommendations: (1) for those >3 h chest pain duration we suggest a single, high‐sensitivity troponin below a validated threshold to reasonably exclude acute coronary syndrome (ACS) within 30 days; (2) for those with a normal stress test within the previous 12 months, we do not recommend repeat routine stress testing as a means to decrease rates of major adverse cardiac events at 30 days; (3) insufficient evidence to recommend hospitalization (either standard inpatient admission or observation stay) versus discharge as a strategy to mitigate major adverse cardiac events within 30 days; (4) for those with non‐obstructive (<50% stenosis) coronary artery disease (CAD) on prior angiography within 5 years, we suggest referral for expedited outpatient testing as warranted rather than admission for inpatient evaluation; (5) for those with no occlusive CAD (0% stenosis) on prior angiography within 5 years, we recommend referral for expedited outpatient testing as warranted rather than admission for inpatient evaluation; (6) for those with a prior coronary computed tomographic angiography within the past 2 years with no coronary stenosis, we suggest no further diagnostic testing other than a single, normal high‐sensitivity troponin below a validated threshold to exclude ACS within that 2 year time frame; (7) we suggest the use of depression and anxiety screening tools as these might have an effect on healthcare use and return emergency department (ED) visits; and (8) we suggest referral for anxiety or depression management, as this might have an impact on healthcare use and return ED visits.

AbstractBackgroundShared decision making in the emergency department (ED) can increase patient engagement for patients presenting with chest pain. However, little is known regarding which factors are associated with actual patient involvement in decision making or patients’ desired involvement in emergency care decisions. We examined which factors were associated with patients’ actual and desired involvement in decision making among ED chest pain patients.MethodsThis is a secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial of a shared decision‐making intervention in ED patients with low‐risk chest pain. We evaluated the degree to which patients were involved in decision making using the OPTION‐12 (observing patient involvement) scale and patients’ reported desire for involvement in decision making using the Control Preferences Scale (CPS). We measured the associations of patient factors with OPTION‐12 and CPS scores using multivariable regression.ResultsOf the 898 patients enrolled, mean (±SD) age was 51.5 (±11.4) years and 59% were female. Multivariable analysis revealed that only two factors were significantly associated with OPTION‐12 scores: study site and use of the decision aid. OPTION‐12 scores were 10.3 (standard error = 0.6) points higher for patients randomized to the decision aid compared to usual care (p < 0.001). Higher health literacy was associated with lower scores on the CPS, indicating greater desire for involvement (odds ratio = 0.91, p < 0.001).ConclusionsPatients’ reported desire for involvement in decision making was higher among those with higher health literacy. After study site and other potential confounding factors were adjusted for, only use of the decision aid was associated with observed patient involvement in decision making. As the science and practice of shared decision making in the ED moves toward implementation, high‐fidelity integration of the decision aid into the flow of care will be necessary to realize desired outcomes.

AbstractObjectivesThe objective was to develop a patient decision aid (DA) to promote shared decision making (SDM) for stable, alert patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with syncope.MethodsUsing input from patients, clinicians, and experts in the field of syncope, health care design, and SDM, we created a prototype of a paper‐based DA to engage patients in the disposition decision (admission vs. discharge) after an unremarkable ED evaluation for syncope. In phase 1, we conducted one‐on‐one semistructured exploratory interviews with 10 emergency physicians and 10 ED syncope patients. In phase 2, we conducted one‐on‐one directed interviews with 15 emergency care clinicians, five cardiologists, and 12 ED syncope patients to get detailed feedback on DA content and design. We iteratively modified the aid using feedback from each interviewee until clarity and usability had been optimized.ResultsThe 11 × 17‐inch, paper‐based DA, titled SynDA, includes four sections: 1) explanation of syncope, 2) explanation of future risks, 3) personalized 30‐day risk estimate, and 4) disposition options. The personalized risk estimate is calculated using a recently published syncope risk‐stratification tool. This risk estimate is stated in natural frequency and graphically displayed using a 100‐person color‐coded pictogram. Patient‐oriented questions are included to stimulate dialogue between patient and clinician. At the end of the development process, patient and physician participants expressed satisfaction with the clarity and usability of the DA.ConclusionsWe iteratively developed an evidence‐based DA to facilitate SDM for alert syncope patients after an unremarkable ED evaluation. Further testing is required to determine its effects on patient care. This DA has the potential to improve care for syncope patients and promote patient‐centered care in emergency medicine.

AbstractDecision aids are evidenced‐based tools designed to increase patient understanding of medical options and possible outcomes, facilitate conversation between patients and clinicians, and improve patient engagement. Decision aids have been used for shared decision making (SDM) interventions outside of the ED setting for more than a decade. Their use in the ED has only recently begun to be studied. This article provides background on this topic and the conclusions of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference SDM in practice work group regarding “Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy‐Relevant, Patient‐Centered Research Agenda.” The goal was to determine a prioritized research agenda for the development and testing of SDM interventions for use in emergency care that was most important to patients, clinicians, caregivers, and other key stakeholders. Using the nominal group technique, the consensus working group proposed prioritized research questions in six key domains: 1) content (i.e., clinical scenario or decision area), 2) level of evidence available, 3) tool design strategies, 4) risk communication, 5) stakeholders, and 6) outcomes.

AbstractObjectivesThe objective was to describe perceptions of practicing emergency physicians (EPs) regarding the appropriateness and medicolegal implications of using shared decision‐making (SDM) in the emergency department (ED).MethodsWe conducted a cross‐sectional survey of EPs at a large, national professional meeting to assess perceived appropriateness of SDM for different categories of ED management (e.g., diagnostic testing, treatment, disposition) and in common clinical scenarios (e.g., low‐risk chest pain, syncope, minor head injury). A 21‐item survey instrument was iteratively developed through review by content experts, cognitive testing, and pilot testing. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were conducted.ResultsWe approached 737 EPs; 709 (96%) completed the survey. Two‐thirds (67.8%) of respondents were male; 51% practiced in an academic setting and 44% in the community. Of the seven management decision categories presented, SDM was reported to be most frequently appropriate for deciding on invasive procedures (71.5%), computed tomography (CT) scanning (56.7%), and post‐ED disposition (56.3%). Among the specific clinical scenarios, use of thrombolytics for acute ischemic stroke was felt to be most frequently appropriate for SDM (83.4%), followed by lumbar puncture to rule out subarachnoid hemorrhage (73.8%) and CT head for pediatric minor head injury (69.9%). Most EPs (66.8%) felt that using and documenting SDM would decrease their medicolegal risk while a minority (14.2%) felt that it would increase their risk.ConclusionsAcceptance of SDM among EPs appears to be strong across management categories (diagnostic testing, treatment, and disposition) and in a variety of clinical scenarios. SDM is perceived by most EPs to be medicolegally protective.