Academic Emergency Medicine最新文献

Background: Diagnostic stewardship is the effort to optimize diagnostic testing to reduce errors while avoiding overtesting and overtreatment. Abdominal pain and appendicitis in children are essential use cases. Delayed diagnosis of appendicitis can be dangerous and even life-threatening, but overtesting is harmful.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of children aged 5-17 years presenting with abdominal pain to 26 EDs within the Michigan Emergency Department Improvement Collaborative (MEDIC) from May 1, 2016, to February 29, 2024. We defined two outcome measures summarized by ED. First, we describe the cross-sectional imaging:appendicitis visits ratio, defined as the count of ED visits resulting in any cross-sectional imaging (CT or MRI) divided by the count of ED visits with a diagnosis of appendicitis. Second, we describe the delayed diagnosis rate, defined by an ED visit for abdominal pain resulting in a discharge and subsequent return visit with a diagnosis of appendicitis within 7 days.

Results: The sample included 120,112 pediatric visits for abdominal pain at 26 EDs; 4967 (4.1%) were diagnosed with appendicitis. The cross-sectional imaging:appendicitis visits ratio varied by site, from as low as 0.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1-0.2) at a pediatric site to as high as 7.9 (95% CI 4.8-16.4) at an urban ED. The proportion of pediatric ED visits for abdominal pain that resulted in an identified delayed diagnosis of appendicitis was 0.1% (141/120,112). All but four sites had fewer than 10 cases of delayed diagnosis across the study period.

Conclusions: In this retrospective cohort study of 120,000+ ED visits for pediatric abdominal pain, we found that the ratio of visits with cross-sectional imaging to diagnosed cases of appendicitis varied widely across EDs. Delayed diagnosis of appendicitis was uncommon. Adherence to best practices and improved imaging quality may hold promise to improve diagnostic stewardship for children with abdominal pain across EDs.

Background: Sepsis is a leading cause of hospital mortality and there is evidence that outcomes vary by patient demographics including race and gender. Our objectives were to determine whether the introduction of a standardized sepsis order set was associated with (1) changes in overall mortality or early antibiotic administration or (2) changes in outcome disparities based on race or gender.

Methods: Patients seen in the emergency department and admitted to the hospital with a diagnosis code of sepsis were identified and divided into a preintervention cohort seen during the 18 months prior to the initiation of a new sepsis order set and an intervention cohort seen during the 18 months after a quality initiative driven by introducing the order set. Associations between time period, race, gender, and mortality were assessed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. Other outcomes included early antibiotic administration (<3 h from arrival).

Results: Overall mortality was unchanged during the intervention period (7.8% vs. 7.2%) in both univariate (relative risk [RR] 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-1.26) and multivariate logistic regression (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.93-1.28) models. Although male gender tended to have higher mortality, there was no statistically significant association between gender and mortality in either cohort. In the multivariable model, Black race was associated with increased risk of death in the preintervention period (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.02-1.94), but this association was not present in the intervention period. Patients of color also saw significantly more improvement in early antibiotic administration during the intervention period than White patients.

Conclusions: An order set-driven sepsis initiative was not associated with overall improved mortality but was associated with decreased racial disparities in sepsis mortality and early antibiotics.

Objective: We previously demonstrated safe treatment of low- to moderate-severity (LTM) diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) using the SQuID protocol (subcutaneous insulin in DKA) in a non-intensive care unit (ICU) observation setting, with decreased emergency department length of stay (EDLOS). Here, we expand eligibility to include sicker patients and admission to a regular medical floor and collected more detailed clinical data in a near-real-time fashion.

Methods: This is a real-world, prospective, observational cohort study in an urban academic hospital (March 4, 2023-March 4, 2024). LTM DKA patients were treated with IV insulin (floor or ICU) or on SQuID. We compare fidelity (time to glargine and dextrose-containing fluids), safety (rescue dextrose for hypoglycemia), effectiveness (time to anion gap closure, time on protocol), and operational efficiency (time to bed request, EDLOS, and ICU admission rate since implementation of the protocol).

Results: Of 84 patients with LTM DKA, 62 (74%) of were treated with SQuID and 22 (26%) with IV insulin. Fidelity was high in both groups. Rescue dextrose was required in five (8%) versus four (18%) patients, respectively (difference 9%, -31% to 10%). Compared to the IV insulin group, time to anion gap was 1.4 h shorter (95% CI -3.4 to 0.2 h) and time on protocol was 10.4 h shorter (95% CI -22.3 to -5.0 h) in SQuID patients. Median EDLOS was lower in the SQuID cohort 9.8 h (IQR 6.0-13.6) than the IV floor cohort 18.3 h (IQR 13.4-22.0 h), but longer than the overall IV insulin cohort. Since inception of SQuID, ICU admission rate in LTM DKA has decreased from 54% to under 21%.

Conclusions: In this single-center study, we observed excellent fidelity, equivalent or superior safety, and clinical and operational effectiveness with SQuID compared to IV insulin. The SQuID protocol has become the de facto default pathway for treatment of LTM DKA. Since inception of SQuID, ICU admissions in LTM DKA have decreased 33%.

Background: Data comparing the performance of sex-specific to overall (non-sex-specific) high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) cut-points for diagnosing acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are limited. This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of sex-specific versus overall 99th percentile high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) cut-points.

Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of the STOP-CP cohort, which prospectively enrolled emergency department patients ≥ 21 years old with symptoms suggestive of ACS without ST-elevation on initial electrocardiogram across eight U.S. sites (January 25, 2017-September 6, 2018). Participants with both 0- and 1-h hs-cTnT measures less than or equal to the 99th percentile (sex-specific 22 ng/L for males, 14 ng/L for females; overall 19 ng/L) were classified into the rule-out group. The safety outcome was adjudicated cardiac death or myocardial infarction (MI) at 30 days. Efficacy was defined as the proportion classified to the rule-out group. McNemar's test and a generalized score statistic were used to compare rule-out and 30-day cardiac death or MI rates between strategies. Net reclassification improvement (NRI) index was used to further compare performance.

Results: This analysis included 1430 patients, of whom 45.8% (655/1430) were female; the mean ± SD age was 57.6 ± 12.8 years. At 30 days, cardiac death or MI occurred in 12.8% (183/1430). The rule-out rate was lower using sex-specific versus overall cut-points (70.6% [1010/1430] vs. 72.5% [1037/1430]; p = 0.003). Among rule-out patients, the 30-day cardiac death or MI rates were similar for sex-specific (2.4% [24/1010]) vs. overall (2.3% [24/1037]) strategies (p = 0.79). Among patients with cardiac death or MI, sex-specific versus overall cut-points correctly reclassified three females and incorrectly reclassified three males. The sex-specific strategy resulted in a net of 27 patients being incorrectly reclassified into the rule-in group. This led to an NRI of -2.2% (95% CI -5.1% to 0.8%).

Conclusions: Sex-specific hs-cTnT cut-points resulted in fewer patients being ruled out without an improvement in safety compared to the overall cut-point strategy.

Background: Patient-centered care (PCC) is an essential component of high-quality health, yet patients with non-English language preferences (NELP) experience worse PCC outcomes. Additionally, there are likely unique aspects to PCC for patients with NELP in the emergency department (ED). To inform the development of strategies to improve PCC for NELP in the ED, we sought to understand how Spanish-speaking ED patients experience care and the factors that influenced their perceptions of the patient-centeredness of that care.

Methods: We conducted a single-center qualitative study using semistructured interviews with adult, Spanish-speaking patients who had been discharged home from the ED. Interviews were conducted using an interview guide, recorded, transcribed, and analyzed iteratively in Spanish using inductive and deductive thematic analysis.

Results: We conducted 19 interviews with participants from 24 to 72 years old. Participants were born in seven different Spanish-speaking countries. Participants identified three domains of PCC: patient, medical team's skills, and system. Several of the identified themes such as shared decision making, open communication, compassionate care, and coordination of follow-up care are often incorporated into PCC definitions. However, other themes, including uncertainty leading to fear, use of professional interpreters to promote understanding, receiving equitable care, technical proficiency, and efficiency of care expand upon existing domains in PCC definitions.

Conclusions: We now have a more nuanced understanding of how Spanish-speaking patients with NELP experience PCC in the ED and what matters to them. Several of the themes identified in this analysis add details about what matters to patients within the domains of previous PCC definitions. This suggests that the conceptualization of PCC may vary based on the setting where care is provided and the population who is receiving this care. Future work should consider patient population and setting when conceptualizing PCC.