Academic Emergency Medicine最新文献

Background: Nonconsent to pulmonary vascular (or advanced) imaging for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) in pregnancy can delay diagnosis and treatment, increasing risk of adverse outcomes. We sought to understand factors associated with consent and understand outcomes after nonconsent.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study was undertaken across 21 community hospitals from October 1, 2021, through March 31, 2023. We included gravid patients undergoing diagnostics for suspected PE who were recommended advanced imaging. The primary outcome was verbal consent to advanced imaging. Diagnostic settings were nonobstetric (99% emergency departments [EDs]) and obstetrics (labor and delivery and outpatient clinics). Using quasi-Poisson regression, we calculated adjusted relative risks (aRRs) of consenting with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We also reported symptom resolution and delayed imaging at follow-up and 90-day PE outcomes.

Results: Imaging was recommended for 405 outpatients: median age was 30.5 years; 50% were in the third trimester. Evaluation was more common in nonobstetric (83%) than obstetric settings (17%). Overall, 314 (78%) agreed to imaging and 91 (22%) declined imaging. Consenting was more prevalent in obstetric settings compared with nonobstetric settings: 99% versus 73% (p < 0.001). When adjusted for demographic and clinical variables, including pretest probability, only obstetric setting was independently associated with consenting: aRR 1.26 (95% CI 1.09-1.44). Seventy-nine (87%) patients declining imaging had 30-day follow-up. Eight of 12 who reported persistent or worsening symptoms on follow-up were again recommended advanced imaging and consented. Imaging was negative. None who initially declined imaging were diagnosed with PE or died within 90 days.

Conclusions: One in five gravid patients suspected of PE declined advanced imaging, more commonly in nonobstetric (principally ED) settings than obstetric settings. Patients symptomatic on follow-up responded favorably to subsequent imaging recommendations without 90-day outcomes. Improving the communication and documentation of informed consent and securing close follow-up for nonconsenters may mitigate risks of missed and delayed PE diagnosis.

Background: Hepatic steatosis is a common incidental finding on emergency department (ED) imaging studies, occurring in up to 10% of studies, and carries significant long-term morbidity. Frequently considered an unimportant finding, it is unknown how often ED patients are informed of hepatic steatosis. Our objective was to examine hepatic steatosis inclusion in ED discharge materials.

Methods: Data from discharged patients at an urban academic ED (>90,000 visits) with abdominal imaging (computed tomography or ultrasound) from 2019 to 2022 were screened. Patients with radiology reports documenting hepatic steatosis were included. Two trained data abstractors analyzed discharge materials and coded disclosure of steatosis (present/absent). Data abstraction also noted how the finding was included (e.g., follow-up instructions, provision of radiology report). Factors associated with patient disclosure were examined through regression models including age, race, ethnicity, insurance, number of imaging studies during encounter, type of imaging study, and inclusion of hepatic steatosis in the impression section of radiology report.

Results: Of 10,677 radiology reports, 1209 (11.3%) had documented hepatic steatosis. The mean (±SD) age was 47.1 (±14.1) years; 56.4% were female, 53.5% were White, and 30.7% Hispanic. Only 173 of 1209 patients (14.3%) received any discharge documentation of hepatic steatosis. In 65% of cases where disclosure occurred, the imaging report was pasted verbatim into discharge material. There were no significant differences in discharge documentation by demographic groups. Mention within the radiology report impression (rather than the report body alone) occurred in 73.8% of records and was the strongest predictor of disclosure to patients (adjusted odds ratio 2.18, 95% confidence interval 1.39-3.54).

Conclusions: Despite the high prevalence of hepatic steatosis in radiology reports, rates of documentation in patient-facing discharge materials are notably low, exposing a possible communication failure with consequences for diagnosis.

Background: The 2022 study on diagnostic error in the emergency department (ED) published by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) reported that one in every 18 ED patients is misdiagnosed. The report was methodologically critiqued by emergency physicians and researchers. However, little is known about public perception of error in the ED. We sought to characterize public response to AHRQ's publication.

Methods: A search was conducted for online news articles published December 2022 reporting the AHRQ study and containing "public comment" sections. Verbatim comments and relevant characteristics were collected. Three coders completed content analysis and resolved any differences. Descriptive statistics and themes are reported.

Results: Fifteen online articles were reviewed; three had public comment sections (New York Times, DailyMail, and Boston Globe). There were 553 unique user comments; 293 were original comments (53%) and 260 were replies to comments (47%). The 260 replies were in response to 113 original comments, with the remaining original comments having 0 replies (n = 180). Of the 202 commenters who identified a personal role in a health care encounter, 70 (35%) identified as patients and 68 (34%) identified as physicians. Comments centered on seven major themes: (1) negative personal experiences, (2) reframing study conclusions, (3) sense of decline in training standards, (4) internal stressors impeding ED diagnostic accuracy, (5) external stressors impeding ED diagnostic accuracy, (6) suggested solutions, and (7) role of the ED in diagnosis.

Conclusions: The news coverage of AHRQ's report provided individuals a platform to share their perspectives. Many comments reflected a nuanced understanding of the role of emergency care and the stressors of the ED environment. Despite questions about the report's accuracy, there were many individuals who shared personal negative experiences suggesting that the public may feel directly impacted by error in the ED.

Objectives: Adolescents frequently use the emergency department (ED) to meet their health care needs, and many use the ED as their primary source of care. The ED is therefore well situated to provide preventive health care to large numbers of adolescents. The objective of this multicenter qualitative analysis was to identify factors that influence the implementation of preventive health care interventions for adolescent patients in the ED.

Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with ED health care providers (HCPs) from five academic pediatric EDs in distinct geographic regions. We developed an interview guide to explore HCP attitudes and beliefs related to implementing preventive health interventions in the ED. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded by three investigators. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used as a guide to code and analyze interview data. We collaboratively generated themes that represent factors that are perceived to facilitate the implementation of preventive health interventions for adolescent patients in the ED setting.

Results: We conducted 38 interviews (18 pediatric emergency medicine attendings/fellows, 11 registered nurses, five nurse practitioners, or and four physician assistants). We generated 10 themes across the five CFIR domains: innovation characteristics (designing interventions to promote adolescent engagement), inner setting (integrating interventions into ED workflow and scope, minimizing provider burden), outer setting (involving the community, aligning with departmental and institutional missions), individuals (identifying champions), and implementation process (involving key stakeholders early, having patience, and targeting all patients to reduce stigma).

Conclusions: Factors facilitating implementation of preventive health interventions for adolescent patients in the ED encompassed multiple CFIR domains, elucidating how the delivery of preventive health interventions for this patient population in the ED requires considering numerous factors comprehensively. These data suggest methods to enhance and facilitate implementation of preventive health interventions for adolescents in the ED.

Objectives: Approximately 10% of patients with syncope have serious or life-threatening causes that may not be apparent during the initial emergency department (ED) assessment. Consequently, researchers have developed clinical decision rules (CDRs) to predict adverse outcomes and risk stratify ED syncope patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) aims to cohere and synthesize the best current evidence regarding the methodological quality and predictive accuracy of CDRs for developing an evidence-based ED syncope management guideline.

Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search according to the patient-intervention-control-outcome question: In patients 16 years of age or older who present to the ED with syncope for whom no underlying serious/life-threatening condition was found during the index ED visit (population), are risk stratification tools (intervention), better than unstructured clinical judgment (i.e., usual care; comparison), for providing accurate prognosis and aiding disposition decision for outcomes within 30 days (outcome)? Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality. We performed statistical analysis using Meta-DiSc. We used GRADEPro GDT software to determine the certainty of the evidence and create a summary of the findings (SoF) tables.

Results: Of 2047 publications obtained through the search strategy, 31 comprising 13 CDRs met the inclusion criteria. There were 13 derivation studies (17,578 participants) and 24 validation studies (14,845 participants). Only three CDRs were validated in more than two studies. The San Francisco Syncope Rule (SFSR) was validated in 12 studies: positive likelihood ratio (LR+) 1.15-4.70 and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) 0.03-0.64. The Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) was validated in five studies: LR+ 1.15-2.58 and LR- 0.05-0.50. The Osservatorio Epidemiologico sulla Sincope nel Lazio (OESIL) risk score was validated in five studies: LR+ 1.16-3.32 and LR- 0.14-0.46.

Conclusions: Most CDRs for ED adult syncope management have low-quality evidence for routine clinical practice use. Only three CDRs (SFSR, CSRS, OESIL) are validated by more than two studies, with significant overlap in operating characteristics.