Are We Overusing Coagulation Studies in the Emergency Department?

Bader Alyahya, Abdulaziz Alalshaikh, Ali Alkhulaif, Tareq Al-Salamah, Badr Aldawood, Alwaleed Alsubaie, Meshal Alohali, Saud A Alshenaifi, Abdulaziz Alohali, Majed B. Alzin, Abdullah Almana, Mohammed Habib, Rana Hasanato
{"title":"Are We Overusing Coagulation Studies in the Emergency Department?","authors":"Bader Alyahya, Abdulaziz Alalshaikh, Ali Alkhulaif, Tareq Al-Salamah, Badr Aldawood, Alwaleed Alsubaie, Meshal Alohali, Saud A Alshenaifi, Abdulaziz Alohali, Majed B. Alzin, Abdullah Almana, Mohammed Habib, Rana Hasanato","doi":"10.1155/2024/8694183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and Objectives. Blood tests are often indiscriminately requested in the Emergency department (ED) and many EDs have preset orders that are usually performed at triage before clinical assessment to improve the flow of patients through the department. We conducted this study to evaluate the frequency of requests for coagulation profile, the incidence of abnormal coagulation profiles and the unnecessary use of coagulation profile testing in our institution. Methods. This retrospective observational study, conducted in the ED of King Saud University Medical City (KSUMC) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, during July and August of 2021(2 months) examined coagulation profile requests. Patients’ demographic data (age and gender), medical and clinical history (presenting complaint, comorbidities, and diagnosis), the use of antiplatelets or anticoagulant agents and laboratory values for PT, APTT, and INR were collected. We calculated the total cost of unnecessary coagulation profile testing based on the independent assessment of two ED consultants. Results. Of 1,754 patients included in the study, 811 (46.2%) were males and 943 (53.8%) were females, with a mean age of 42.1 ± 18.5 years. There were 29 (1.7%) patients with liver disease and 21 (1.2%) patients had thromboembolic disease. The majority of the patients’ results were within normal levels of PT (n = 1,409, 80.3%), APTT (n = 1,262, 71.9%), and INR (n = 1,711, 97.4%). Evidence of active bleeding was detected in 29 patients (1.7%). Among patients with bleeding only one had an abnormal INR (3.01) and was on warfarin. Forty-six (2.6%) patients had elevated INR level. Cohen’s kappa between the two consultants was recorded at 0.681 (substantial agreement) in their assessment of the appropriateness of coagulation tests requests and both consultants believed that 1,051 tests (59.9%) were not indicated and were unnecessary. The expected annual cost saving if the unnecessary tests were removed would be around SAR 1,897,200 (approximately US$ 503,232) which is about SAR 180000 (US$ 48000)/1000 patients. Conclusion. This study showed that coagulation tests are overused in the ED. More than half of coagulation profile tests in our study population were deemed unnecessary and associated with significant cost. Targeted testing based on specific patient presentation and medical history can guide physicians in wisely choosing who needs coagulation studies.","PeriodicalId":507426,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Medicine International","volume":"55 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Medicine International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/8694183","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

Background and Objectives. Blood tests are often indiscriminately requested in the Emergency department (ED) and many EDs have preset orders that are usually performed at triage before clinical assessment to improve the flow of patients through the department. We conducted this study to evaluate the frequency of requests for coagulation profile, the incidence of abnormal coagulation profiles and the unnecessary use of coagulation profile testing in our institution. Methods. This retrospective observational study, conducted in the ED of King Saud University Medical City (KSUMC) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, during July and August of 2021(2 months) examined coagulation profile requests. Patients’ demographic data (age and gender), medical and clinical history (presenting complaint, comorbidities, and diagnosis), the use of antiplatelets or anticoagulant agents and laboratory values for PT, APTT, and INR were collected. We calculated the total cost of unnecessary coagulation profile testing based on the independent assessment of two ED consultants. Results. Of 1,754 patients included in the study, 811 (46.2%) were males and 943 (53.8%) were females, with a mean age of 42.1 ± 18.5 years. There were 29 (1.7%) patients with liver disease and 21 (1.2%) patients had thromboembolic disease. The majority of the patients’ results were within normal levels of PT (n = 1,409, 80.3%), APTT (n = 1,262, 71.9%), and INR (n = 1,711, 97.4%). Evidence of active bleeding was detected in 29 patients (1.7%). Among patients with bleeding only one had an abnormal INR (3.01) and was on warfarin. Forty-six (2.6%) patients had elevated INR level. Cohen’s kappa between the two consultants was recorded at 0.681 (substantial agreement) in their assessment of the appropriateness of coagulation tests requests and both consultants believed that 1,051 tests (59.9%) were not indicated and were unnecessary. The expected annual cost saving if the unnecessary tests were removed would be around SAR 1,897,200 (approximately US$ 503,232) which is about SAR 180000 (US$ 48000)/1000 patients. Conclusion. This study showed that coagulation tests are overused in the ED. More than half of coagulation profile tests in our study population were deemed unnecessary and associated with significant cost. Targeted testing based on specific patient presentation and medical history can guide physicians in wisely choosing who needs coagulation studies.
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
急诊科是否过度使用凝血功能检查?
背景和目的。急诊科(ED)经常会不加区分地要求进行血液化验,许多急诊科都有预设医嘱,通常是在临床评估前进行分诊,以改善患者的就诊流程。我们开展了这项研究,以评估本机构要求进行凝血功能检查的频率、异常凝血功能检查的发生率以及不必要使用凝血功能检查的情况。研究方法这项回顾性观察研究于 2021 年 7 月和 8 月(2 个月)在沙特阿拉伯利雅得的沙特国王大学医疗城(KSUMC)急诊室进行,对要求进行凝血功能检查的情况进行了调查。我们收集了患者的人口统计学数据(年龄和性别)、医疗和临床病史(主诉、合并症和诊断)、抗血小板或抗凝剂的使用情况以及 PT、APTT 和 INR 的实验室值。我们根据两名急诊室顾问的独立评估,计算了不必要的凝血功能检查的总费用。结果。在纳入研究的 1,754 名患者中,811 名(46.2%)为男性,943 名(53.8%)为女性,平均年龄为 42.1 ± 18.5 岁。29名(1.7%)患者患有肝病,21名(1.2%)患者患有血栓栓塞性疾病。大多数患者的 PT(n = 1 409,80.3%)、APTT(n = 1 262,71.9%)和 INR(n = 1 711,97.4%)结果均在正常范围内。有 29 名患者(1.7%)被检测出有活动性出血迹象。在出血患者中,只有一名患者 INR 异常(3.01),并且正在服用华法林。46名患者(2.6%)的INR水平升高。两位顾问在评估凝血检验申请的适当性方面的科恩卡帕值为 0.681(基本一致),两位顾问都认为有 1 051 项检验(59.9%)不适用且不必要。如果取消不必要的检测,预计每年可节约成本约 189.72 万里亚尔(约合 503 232 美元),约合 18 万里亚尔(48000 美元)/1000 名患者。结论这项研究表明,急诊室过度使用凝血测试。在我们的研究人群中,一半以上的凝血功能检查被认为是不必要的,并产生了大量费用。根据患者的具体表现和病史进行有针对性的检测,可指导医生明智地选择需要进行凝血检查的患者。
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
Validation of Difficult Airway Physiological Score (DAPS) in Critically Ill Adults Undergoing Endotracheal Intubation in the Emergency Department Are We Overusing Coagulation Studies in the Emergency Department? Retracted: Diagnosis of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia and Invasive Cervical Carcinoma by Cervical Biopsy under Colposcopy and Analysis of Factors Influencing Retracted: Relationship between Peripheral Blood miR-181c, miR-101, and Cognitive Impairment in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus Complicated with Acute Stroke Retracted: Application of Doctor-Nurse-Patient Co-Decision-Making Nursing Intervention Based on Evidence-Based Problems in the Rehabilitation of Acute Ankle Lateral Collateral Ligament Injury
×
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