Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine
-
Multicenter Study
Predicting Short-Term Risk of Arrhythmia among Patients with Syncope: The Canadian Syncope Arrhythmia Risk Score.
Syncope can be caused by serious occult arrhythmias not evident during initial emergency department (ED) evaluation. We sought to develop a risk tool for predicting 30-day arrhythmia or death after ED disposition. ⋯ The Canadian Syncope Arrhythmia Risk Score can improve patient safety by identification of those at risk for arrhythmias and aid in acute management decisions. Once validated, the score can identify low-risk patients who will require no further investigations.
-
Multicenter Study
Rate-control with beta-blockers versus calcium-channel blockers in the emergency setting: predictors of medication class choice and associated hospitalization.
Rate control is an important component of the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Previous studies of emergency department (ED) rate control have been limited by relatively small sample sizes. We examined the use of beta-blockers (BBs) versus nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (CCBs) in ED patients from 24 sites and the associated hospital admission rates. ⋯ In this study of 24 EDs, CCBs were used more frequently for rate control than BBs, and complications were rare and easily managed using both agents. Variation between hospitals in BB versus CCB use was predominantly due to hospital characteristics such as teaching status and AF volumes, rather than different case mix. Among patients who did not receive attempts at rhythm control, use of a BB for rate control was associated with a lower rate of hospitalization.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Patient Navigation for Patients Frequently Visiting the Emergency Department: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.
Emergency department (ED) superutilizers (patients with five or more visits/year) comprise only 5% of the patients seen yet comprise 25% of total ED visits. Although the reasons for this are multifactorial, the cost to the patient and the community is exceedingly high. The cost is not just monetary; care of these patients is inappropriately fragmented and their presence in the ED may contribute to overcrowding affecting the community's emergency readiness. Previous studies using staff trained to help patients navigate their care options have had conflicting results. ⋯ Our data showed that the overall number of return ED visits and costs did decrease for both groups, potentially inferring a placebo effect for the use of a PN; however, the decrease in ED visits and costs were greater in the treatment group. One-year follow-up noted an increase in PCP visits in the navigation group. Use of a PN may be cost-effective.
-
We sought to characterize the population of patients seeking care at multiple emergency departments (EDs) and to quantify the proportion of all ED visits and costs accounted for by these patients. ⋯ A substantial minority of patients visit multiple EDs, but account for a disproportionate burden of overall ED utilization and costs. Future work should evaluate the impact of visiting multiple EDs on care utilization and outcomes and explore systems for improving access to patient records across care centers.
-
Pretrial community consultation (CC) is required for emergency research conducted under an exception from informed consent (EFIC) in the United States. CC remains controversial and challenging, and minimal data exist regarding the views of individuals enrolled in EFIC trials on this process. It is important to know whether participants perceive CC to be meaningful and, if so, whom they believe should be consulted. ⋯ Participants in EFIC trials and their decision makers generally valued CC as a method of informing and seeking input from the community. Participants felt that the most appropriate groups to consult were the medical community and individuals with connections to the condition under study. Consultation efforts focused on these two groups, rather than the general public, may be more efficient and more meaningful to individuals involved in EFIC trials. These findings also reinforce the importance of the distinction between public disclosure and CC.