Evaluation of Cardiology Consultation Quality and Quantity Requested from Emergency Departments in Turkey

F. Kahraman, Tülay Oskay, S. Guler, Gökay Taylan, A. Yılmaz, H. Orhan
{"title":"Evaluation of Cardiology Consultation Quality and Quantity Requested from Emergency Departments in Turkey","authors":"F. Kahraman, Tülay Oskay, S. Guler, Gökay Taylan, A. Yılmaz, H. Orhan","doi":"10.48176/esmj.2022.87","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Emergency cardiac consultation is a very big part of cardiology practice and there is not any trial evaluating this subject qualitatively and quantitatively with different perspectives yet. We wanted to investigate this process in terms of correlation between emergency physicians and cardiologists.\nMethods: Patients who are consulted in a cross-sectional and prospectively 5 different public hospitals were included in the study. In order to examine the nature and intensity of the cardiology consultations and also the diagnostic compatibility, electrocardiography (ECG) and to investigate the adequacy of the first medical treatment were chi-square and correlation analyzes. A P value <0.05 was accepted as a statistical significance limit.\nResults: Totally 627 patients (502 patients by practitioners and 125 patients by emergency medicine specialists) were consulted to cardiology. The most common admission cause was chest pain (%47.8), and the most common cause of consultation was having no/weak idea about patient’s clinical diagnosis (%39.9). The diagnosis consistency of 48% of consulted patients by EMS was excellent while it was 32.1% in practitioners (p=0.001). Good and excellent ECG interpretation of EMS was 72.8% and it was 50.7% in practitioners (p<0.001). Good and excellent first medical treatment were 46.4% in EMS while it was 38,4 in practitioners (p=0.05). Nearly half of consultations (48.8%) were considered as definitely unnecessary or unnecessary by cardiologists. There was statistically significant correlation between the necessity of consultation and last decision (r=0.811, p<0.001).\nConclusion: There is a big variability in emergency cardiac consultations from the standpoint of consultation necessity, ECG interpretation, first medical management quality and accurate diagnosis.\n","PeriodicalId":348820,"journal":{"name":"Eskisehir Medical Journal, Eskisehir City Hospital","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eskisehir Medical Journal, Eskisehir City Hospital","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.48176/esmj.2022.87","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Emergency cardiac consultation is a very big part of cardiology practice and there is not any trial evaluating this subject qualitatively and quantitatively with different perspectives yet. We wanted to investigate this process in terms of correlation between emergency physicians and cardiologists. Methods: Patients who are consulted in a cross-sectional and prospectively 5 different public hospitals were included in the study. In order to examine the nature and intensity of the cardiology consultations and also the diagnostic compatibility, electrocardiography (ECG) and to investigate the adequacy of the first medical treatment were chi-square and correlation analyzes. A P value <0.05 was accepted as a statistical significance limit. Results: Totally 627 patients (502 patients by practitioners and 125 patients by emergency medicine specialists) were consulted to cardiology. The most common admission cause was chest pain (%47.8), and the most common cause of consultation was having no/weak idea about patient’s clinical diagnosis (%39.9). The diagnosis consistency of 48% of consulted patients by EMS was excellent while it was 32.1% in practitioners (p=0.001). Good and excellent ECG interpretation of EMS was 72.8% and it was 50.7% in practitioners (p<0.001). Good and excellent first medical treatment were 46.4% in EMS while it was 38,4 in practitioners (p=0.05). Nearly half of consultations (48.8%) were considered as definitely unnecessary or unnecessary by cardiologists. There was statistically significant correlation between the necessity of consultation and last decision (r=0.811, p<0.001). Conclusion: There is a big variability in emergency cardiac consultations from the standpoint of consultation necessity, ECG interpretation, first medical management quality and accurate diagnosis.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
土耳其急诊科心脏科会诊质量与数量评价
急诊心脏会诊是心脏病学实践的重要组成部分,目前还没有从不同角度对这一主题进行定性和定量评价的试验。我们想调查急诊医生和心脏病专家之间的相关性。方法:在横断面和前瞻性的5个不同的公立医院就诊的患者纳入研究。为了检查心脏科会诊的性质和强度,以及诊断的兼容性,心电图(ECG)和调查首次用药的充分性进行卡方分析和相关分析。以P <0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果:共会诊627例患者,其中执业医师502例,急诊专科医师125例。最常见的入院原因是胸痛(47.8%),最常见的会诊原因是对患者的临床诊断不了解或不清楚(39.9%)。就诊患者中有48%的诊断一致性良好,而执业医师的诊断一致性为32.1% (p=0.001)。EMS良好和优秀的心电图解释率为72.8%,从业人员为50.7% (p<0.001)。内科医生首次就诊优良率为38.4%,内科医生首次就诊优良率为46.4% (p=0.05)。近一半的咨询(48.8%)被心脏病专家认为是绝对不必要的或不必要的。会诊必要性与最终决定有统计学意义(r=0.811, p<0.001)。结论:急诊心脏会诊在会诊必要性、心电判读、第一医疗管理质量、诊断准确性等方面存在较大差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
THE EFFECT OF CAFFEINE INTAKE LEVELS DURING PREGNANCY ON NEWBORN HEALTH GASTRIC POLYPS: A RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF 5-YEAR SINGLE CENTER RESULTS GALECTIN-3, AN INDICATOR OF INFLAMMATION AND OXIDATION, IS LINKED WITH THE SEVERITY OF ALZHEIMER S DISEASE SİSTEMİK LUPUS ERİTEMATOZUS TANILI HASTALARDA HİPERMOBİLİTE SIKLIĞI VE BU HASTALARIN DEMOGRAFİK, KLİNİK ÖZELLİKLERİ EVALUATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SLEEP DISORDERS AND DEPRESSION IN PARKINSON S DISEASE
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1