Bellolio, Fernanda

AbstractObjectivesNeurovascular and neurocritical care emergencies constitute a leading cause of morbidity/mortality. There has been great evolution in this field, including but not limited to extended time‐window therapeutic interventions for acute ischemic stroke. The intent of this article is to evaluate the goals and future direction of clinical rotations in neurovascular and neurocritical care for emergency medicine (EM) residents.MethodsA panel of 13 board‐certified emergency physicians from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) neurologic emergencies interest group (IG) convened in response to a call for publications—three with fellowship training/board certification in stroke and/or neurocritical care; five with advanced research degrees; three who have been authors on national practice guidelines; and six who have held clinical duties within neurology, neurosurgery, or neurocritical care. A mixed‐methods analysis was performed including a review of the literature, a survey of Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors (CORD) residency leaders/faculty and SAEM neuro‐IG members, and a consensus review by this panel of select neurology rotations provided by IG faculty.ResultsThirteen articles for residency neurovascular education were identified: three studies on curriculum, three studies evaluating knowledge, and seven studies evaluating knowledge after an educational intervention. Intervention outcomes included the ability to recognize and manage acute strokes, manage intracerebral hemorrhage, calculate National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), and interpret images. In the survey sent to CORD residency leaders and neuro‐IG faculty, response was obtained from 48 programs. A total of 52.1% indicated having a required rotation (6.2% general neurology, 2% stroke service, 18.8% neurologic intensive care unit, 2% neurosurgery, 22.9% on a combination of services). The majority of programs with required rotations have a combination rotation (residents rotate through multiple services) and evaluations were positive.ConclusionsVariability exists in the availability of neurovascular/neurocritical care rotations for EM trainees. Dedicated clinical time in neurologic education was beneficial to participants. Given recent advancements in the field, augmentation of EM residency training in this area merits strong consideration.

Background: Patient satisfaction surveys are vital to measuring a patient’s experience of care. How scores of patients managed by emergency medicine (EM) residents change as residents progress through training is not known. Objectives: To evaluate whether EM residents’ patient satisfaction scores improve as residency training progresses, similar to clinical skill improvement. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study evaluated the correlation of patient satisfaction scores with EM resident year of training from 2015 through 2017. We evaluated for a change in score over time for the 4 “physician questions” and the “overall” score. Results: We evaluated 1684 Press Ganey surveys linked to 40 EM resident physicians during the study period. The mean top box scores for the 4 physician questions (concern for comfort [ P = .72], courtesy [ P = .55], informative about treatment [ P = .46], and listening [ P = .91]) and overall assessment of emergency department care ( P = .51) were not significantly improved over the course of resident. Conclusion: We did not observe a difference in EM residents’ patient experience scores as their level of training progressed. Comprehensive patient experience training for residents might be needed.

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.

AbstractBackgroundFood is the leading cause of anaphylaxis in children seen in emergency departments in the United States, yet data on emergency department visits and hospitalizations related to food‐induced anaphylaxis are limited. The objective of our study was to examine national time trends of pediatric food‐induced anaphylaxis‐related emergency department visits and hospitalizations.MethodsWe conducted an observational study using a national administrative claims database from 2005 through 2014. Participants were younger than 18 years with an emergency department visit or hospitalization for food‐induced anaphylaxis. Outcome measures of our study included time trends of pediatric food‐induced anaphylaxis‐related emergency department visits and hospitalizations, including observations (in an emergency department or a hospital unit), inpatient admissions, and intensive care unit admissions.ResultsDuring the study period, participants had 7310 food‐induced anaphylaxis‐related emergency department visits. Emergency department visits for food‐induced anaphylaxis increased by 214% (P < .001); the highest rates were in infants and toddlers (age 0‐2 years). Rates of emergency department visits significantly increased in all age‐groups, with the highest increase in adolescents (age 13‐17 years: 413%; P < .001). Peanuts accounted for the highest rates (5.85 per 100 000 in 2014) followed by tree nuts/seeds (4.62 per 100 000 in 2014). The greatest increase in rates of emergency department visits for food‐induced anaphylaxis occurred with tree nuts/seeds (373.0% increase during the study period).ConclusionsThe incidence of food‐induced anaphylaxis has significantly increased over time in children of all ages. Food‐induced anaphylaxis in children is an important national public health concern.

Policy and financial pressures have driven up use of observation stays for patients in traditional Medicare and the Veterans’ Affairs Healthcare System. Using claims data (2004-2014) from OptumLabs™ Data Warehouse, we examined whether people in private Medicare Advantage (MA) and commercial plans experienced similar changes. We found that use of observation increased rapidly for patients in MA plans—even though MA plans were not subject to the same pressures as government-run programs. In contrast, use of observation remained constant for people in commercial plans—except for enrollees 65 and older, for whom it increased somewhat. Privately insured patients returning to the hospital after an inpatient stay were increasingly likely to be placed under observation. Our results suggest that observation is rapidly replacing inpatient admissions and readmissions for many older patients in MA and commercial plans, while younger patients continue to be admitted as inpatients at relatively constant rates.

AbstractBackgroundThe Choosing Wisely campaign has called for better engagement of palliative and hospice care services for patients in the emergency department (ED). PREDICT is a clinical prediction tool that was derived in an Australian ED cohort. It assesses a patient's risk of mortality at 1 year to select those who would benefit from advanced care planning. Such goals‐of‐care discussion can improve patients’ ability to communicate what they want out of their healthcare and, in cases of end of life, potentially reduce the number of futile interventions. Using a cutoff of 13 points, PREDICT had a reported 95.3% specificity and 53.9% sensitivity for 1‐year mortality. We externally validated PREDICT and derived a simpler modified PREDICT tool to systematically identify high‐risk patients eligible for goals‐of‐care discussions and palliative care consultation in the ED.MethodsThis was an observational cohort study of a random sample of 927 patients aged 55+ seen in the ED in 2014. We identified advance healthcare directives (AHDs) on file. We summarized diagnostic accuracy of the clinical tool to predict 1‐year mortality using sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC). We refined PREDICT using multivariable modeling. We followed reporting guidelines including STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for cohort studies and Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD).ResultsA total of 927 patients were included: 55.0% were male, 63 (7.0%) were nursing home residents, 389 (42.0%) patients had an AHD in their medical record at the time of ED visit, and 245 (26.4%) were deceased at 1 year. Of the 780 patients with PREDICT scores < 13, a total of 164 (21.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 18.3–24.1) were deceased at 1 year, and of the 147 patients with PREDICT scores ≥ 13, a total of 81 (55.1%; 95% CI = 46.7–63.2) were deceased at 1 year. The AUC of the PREDICT score was 0.717 (95% CI = 0.680–0.754), sensitivity was 33.1% (95% CI = 27.3–39.4), and specificity was 90.3% (95% CI = 87.8–92.4) to predict 1‐year mortality. The modified PREDICT tool resulted in an AUC of 0.709 (95% CI = 0.671–0.747). We decided to select this model as the preferred model, as the variable of intensive care unit (ICU) admission with multiorgan failure can be difficult to assess in the ED and may delay advanced care planning. Reweighting the score did not improve fit or the AUC, so points assigned to each variable were not adjusted.ConclusionPREDICT is an easy tool to administer to be able to identify patients who are at high risk of 1‐year mortality and who could benefit from AHDs, goals‐of‐care discussion, and when appropriate in the context of an end‐of‐life setting, palliative medicine consultation. External validation of PREDICT was successful in our population. We simplified PREDICT and derived a new tool, the modified PREDICT minus ICU tool, without significantly altering the sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for death at 1 year. The next steps include external validation of the newly derived rule and prospective implementation.

AbstractObjectivesto compare healthcare utilization including coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), rehospitalization, and rate of subsequent acute myocardial infarction (AMI) within 30 days, among patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain admitted as short‐term inpatient (≤2 days) versus observation (in‐ED observation units combined with in‐hospital observation).MethodsWe identified adults diagnosed with acute chest pain in the ED from 2010 to 2014 using administrative claims from privately insured and Medicare Advantage. Patients having AMI during the index visit were excluded. One‐to‐one propensity‐score matching and logistic regression were used. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported.ResultsA total of 774,017 chest pain visits were included. After matching, healthcare utilization was lower among observation versus short inpatient, with 10.9% versus 24.4% (OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.36 to 0.39) undergoing cardiac catheterization and 1.8% versus 7.6% (OR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.21 to 0.24) having PCI. The incidence of subsequent AMI within the following 30 days was similar in patients admitted as observation versus short inpatient (0.23% vs. 0.21%; OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.42).ConclusionsThere were higher rates of cardiac catheterization and PCI among those admitted as a short inpatient compared to observation, while the incidence of subsequent AMI within 30 days was similar.

AbstractObjectivesRapid response teams (RRTs) respond to signs of deterioration to avoid morbidity and mortality. Early RRT activation (eRRT) in patients admitted from the emergency department (ED) is associated with significantly increased mortality. Predicting these events may represent an opportunity to identify patients who would benefit from further resuscitation, aid disposition decision‐making, or improve communication between ED and inpatient providers. We aimed to create a clinical prediction instrument to quantify the risk of eRRT.MethodsWe performed an observational cohort study of patients admitted to a non–intensive care unit (ICU) setting who triggered eRRT from January 2009 to December of 2012 compared to those who did not trigger eRRT. Age, sex, ED vital sign measurements, and final ED diagnosis by ICD‐9 code were evaluated in a multivariable logistic regression model. The performance of prediction models was assessed using discrimination summarized by area under a receiver operating curve (AUC) and calibration with the Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness‐of‐fit test. The final model was used to create a simplified scoring system.ResultsThe eRRT group consisted of 474 patients who were compared to 2,575 patients in the reference group. Age and sex did not add significant discrimination to the model and were eliminated from the simplified, final model. This model, which included vital signs and diagnosis category, was found to have an AUC of 0.754 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.730 to 0.778) and was used to create a simplified scoring system. The odds ratio for the association of a 1‐unit increase in risk score with eRRT was 1.37 (95% CI = 1.32 to 1.41; p < 0.001). When internally validated, the score was found to have an AUC of 0.759 (95% CI = 0.735 to 0.753). Calculated scores ranged from −3 to 18, which corresponded to predicted probabilities of eRRT ranging from 5.1% to 72.2%.ConclusionsIn summary, the PeRRT score is a simple tool that can be referenced by emergency providers at the bedside to quantify the risk of early RRT activation and potential deterioration, helping to answer the question, “How likely is my patient to trigger an RRT activation in the next twelve hours?” Given that patients who trigger eRRT have an elevated risk of morbidity and mortality, higher scores should result in resuscitative intervention, further observation in the ED, consideration of ICU admission, or direct enhanced communication between ED and inpatient providers. A prospective multicenter study is required to further validate this instrument.

Abstract Diagnostic testing is an integral component of patient evaluation in the emergency department ( ED ). Emergency clinicians frequently use diagnostic testing to more confidently exclude “worst‐case” diagnoses rather than to determine the most likely etiology for a presenting complaint. Increased utilization of diagnostic testing has not been associated with reductions in disease‐related mortality but has led to increased overall healthcare costs and other unintended consequences (e.g., incidental findings requiring further workup, unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiation or potentially nephrotoxic contrast). Shared decision making ( SDM ) presents an opportunity for clinicians to discuss the benefits and harms associated with diagnostic testing with patients to more closely tailor testing to patient risk. This article introduces the challenges and opportunities associated with incorporating SDM into emergency care by summarizing the conclusions of the diagnostic testing group at the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference on SDM . Three primary domains emerged: 1) characteristics of a condition or test appropriate for SDM , 2) critical elements of and potential barriers to SDM discussions on diagnostic testing, and 3) financial aspects of SDM applied to diagnostic testing. The most critical research questions to improve engagement of patients in their acute care diagnostic decisions were determined by consensus.

Objective and design We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the incidence of adverse events in the emergency department (ED) during procedural sedation in the paediatric population. Randomised controlled trials and observational studies from the past 10 years were included. We adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Setting ED. Participants Children. Interventions Procedural sedation. Outcomes Adverse events like vomiting, agitation, hypoxia and apnoea. Meta-analysis was performed with random-effects model and reported as incidence rates with 95% CIs. Results A total of 1177 studies were retrieved for screening and 258 were selected for full-text review. 41 studies reporting on 13 883 procedural sedations in 13 876 children (≤18 years) were included. The most common adverse events (all reported per 1000 sedations) were: vomiting 55.5 (CI 45.2 to 65.8), agitation 17.9 (CI 12.2 to 23.7), hypoxia 14.8 (CI 10.2 to 19.3) and apnoea 7.1 (CI 3.2 to 11.0). The need to intervene with either bag valve mask, oral airway or positive pressure ventilation occurred in 5.0 per 1000 sedations (CI 2.3 to 7.6). The incidences of severe respiratory events were: 34 cases of laryngospasm among 8687 sedations (2.9 per 1000 sedations, CI 1.1 to 4.7; absolute rate 3.9 per 1000 sedations), 4 intubations among 9136 sedations and 0 cases of aspiration among 3326 sedations. 33 of the 34 cases of laryngospasm occurred in patients who received ketamine. Conclusions Serious adverse respiratory events are very rare in paediatric procedural sedation in the ED. Emesis and agitation are the most frequent adverse events. Hypoxia, a late indicator of respiratory depression, occurs in 1.5% of sedations. Laryngospasm, though rare, happens most frequently with ketamine. The results of this study provide quantitative risk estimates to facilitate shared decision-making, risk communication, informed consent and resource allocation in children undergoing procedural sedation in the ED.