San Francisco Syncope Rule to predict short-term serious outcomes: a systematic review

Background:

The San Francisco Syncope Rule has been proposed as a clinical decision rule for risk stratification of patients presenting to the emergency department with syncope. It has been validated across various populations and settings. We undertook a systematic review of its accuracy in predicting short-term serious outcomes.

Methods:

We identified studies by means of systematic searches in seven electronic databases from inception to January 2011. We extracted study data in duplicate and used a bivariate random-effects model to assess the predictive accuracy and test characteristics.

Results:

We included 12 studies with a total of 5316 patients, of whom 596 (11%) experienced a serious outcome. The prevalence of serious outcomes across the studies varied between 5% and 26%. The pooled estimate of sensitivity of the San Francisco Syncope Rule was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79–0.93), and the pooled estimate of specificity was 0.52 (95% CI 0.43–0.62). There was substantial between-study heterogeneity (resulting in a 95% prediction interval for sensitivity of 0.55–0.98). The probability of a serious outcome given a negative score with the San Francisco Syncope Rule was 5% or lower, and the probability was 2% or lower when the rule was applied only to patients for whom no cause of syncope was identified after initial evaluation in the emergency department. The most common cause of false-negative classification for a serious outcome was cardiac arrhythmia.

Interpretation:

The San Francisco Syncope Rule should be applied only for patients in whom no cause of syncope is evident after initial evaluation in the emergency department. Consideration of all available electrocardiograms, as well as arrhythmia monitoring, should be included in application of the San Francisco Syncope Rule. Between-study heterogeneity was likely due to inconsistent classification of arrhythmia.Syncope is defined as sudden, transient loss of consciousness with the inability to maintain postural tone, followed by spontaneous recovery and return to pre-existing neurologic function.^1–5 It represents a common clinical problem, accounting for 1%–3% of visits to the emergency department and up to 6% of admissions to acute care hospitals.^6,7Assessment of syncope in patients presenting to the emergency department is challenging because of the heterogeneity of underlying pathophysiologic processes and diseases. Although many underlying causes of syncope are benign, others are associated with substantial morbidity or mortality, including cardiac arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism and occult hemorrhage.^4,8–10 Consequently, a considerable proportion of patients with benign causes of syncope are admitted for inpatient evaluation.^11,12 Therefore, risk stratification that allows for the safe discharge of patients at low risk of a serious outcome is important for efficient management of patients in emergency departments and for reduction of costs associated with unnecessary diagnostic workup.^12,13In recent years, various prediction rules based on the probability of an adverse outcome after an episode of syncope have been proposed.^3,14–16 However, the San Francisco Syncope Rule, derived by Quinn and colleagues in 2004,³ is the only prediction rule for serious outcomes that has been validated in a variety of populations and settings. This simple, five-step clinical decision rule is intended to identify patients at low risk of short-term serious outcomes^3,17 (Box 1).

Box 1:

San Francisco Syncope Rule³

AimPrediction of short-term (within 30 days) serious outcomes in patients presenting to the emergency department with syncope.DefinitionsSyncope: Transient loss of consciousness with return to baseline neurologic function. Trauma-associated and alcohol- or drug-related loss of consciousness excluded, as is definite seizure or altered mental status.Serious outcome: Death, myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, pulmonary embolism, stroke, subarachnoid hemorrhage, significant hemorrhage or any condition causing or likely to cause a return visit to the emergency department and admission to hospital for a related event.Selection of predictors in multivariable analysis: Fifty predictor variables were evaluated for significant associations with a serious outcome and combined to create a minimal set of predictors that are highly sensitive and specific for prediction of a serious outcome.Clinical decision ruleFive risk factors, indicated by the mnemonic “CHESS,” were identified to predict patients at high risk of a serious outcome:

• C – History of congestive heart failure
• H – Hematocrit < 30%
• E – Abnormal findings on 12-lead ECG or cardiac monitoring¹⁷ (new changes or nonsinus rhythm)
• S – History of shortness of breath
• S – Systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg at triage

Note: ECG = electrocardiogram.The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of the San Francisco Syncope Rule in predicting short-term serious outcome for patients presenting to the emergency department with syncope.     

The effect of a charted history of depression on emergency department triage and outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction

Background

Patients with acute myocardial infarction may have worse outcomes if they also have a history of depression. The early management of acute myocardial infarction is known to influence outcomes, and patients with a coexisting history of depression may be treated differently in the emergency department than those without one. Our goal was to determine whether having a charted history of depression was associated with a lower-priority emergency department triage score and worse performance on quality-of-care indices.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort analysis involving patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to 96 acute care hospitals in the province of Ontario from April 2004 to March 2005. We calculated the adjusted odds of low-priority triage (Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale score of 3, 4 or 5) for patients with acute myocardial infarction who had a charted history of depression. We compared these odds with those for patients having a charted history of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Secondary outcome measures were the odds of meeting benchmark door-to-electrocardiogram, door-to-needle and door-to-balloon times.

Results

Of 6784 patients with acute myocardial infarction, 680 (10.0%) had a past medical history of depression documented in their chart. Of these patients, 39.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 35.3%–42.9%) were assigned a low-priority triage score, as compared with 32.7% (95% CI 31.5%–33.9%) of those without a charted history of depression. The adjusted odds of receiving a low-priority triage score with a charted history of depression were 1.26 (p = 0.01) versus 0.88 (p = 0.23) with asthma and 1.12 (p = 0.24) with COPD. For patients with a charted history of depression, the median door-to-electrocardiogram time was 20.0 minutes (v. 17.0 min for the rest of the cohort), median door-to-needle time was 53.0 (v. 37.0) minutes, and median door-to-balloon time was 251.0 (v. 110.0) minutes. The adjusted odds of missing the benchmark time with a charted history of depression were 1.39 (p < 0.001) for door-to-electrocardiogram time, 1.62 (p = 0.047) for door-to-needle time and 9.12 (p = 0.019) for door-to-balloon time.

Interpretation

Patients with acute myocardial infarction who had a charted history of depression were more likely to receive a low-priority emergency department triage score than those with other comorbidities and to have worse associated performance on quality indicators in acute myocardial infarction care.In the United States, more than six million patients with conditions related to mental health are seen each year in the nation’s emergency departments.¹ Some of these comprise the six million patients with chest pain who are also seen annually in the emergency department.² Several studies have suggested that patients with acute myocardial infarction fare worse if they also suffer from depression.^3–5 The cause for less favourable outcomes is thought to be multifactorial and to include poor adherence to treatment.⁵ To our knowledge, quality of care in emergency departments has not been examined as a possible contributor. It has been suggested that patients with mental illness receive a lower-priority triage score than other patients in emergency departments because of the stigma of the disease.^6,7Virtually all patients who present to an emergency department are initially assessed by a trained triage nurse. The nurse assigns them a triage score based on their illness acuity, prioritizing them for subsequent emergency care. In Ontario, all emergency departments are mandated to use the five-level Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale.⁸ This uniformity provides an opportunity to study the effect of triage at the population level. In the United States, various triage tools are used.⁹Previously, we established that the emergency department triage scores assigned to patients who are ultimately found to be having an acute myocardial infarction are independently associated with delays in diagnostic testing and reperfusion.¹⁰ In this study, we examined the emergency department care of patients with acute myocardial infarction who had a medical history of depression noted in their emergency department chart. We aimed to determine whether these patients were assigned lower-priority triage scores than other patients with acute myocardial infarction and whether there was an association between a charted history of depression and performance on established quality-of-care indices.¹¹     

Prospective validation of the ABCD2 score for patients in the emergency department with transient ischemic attack

Background:

The ABCD2 score (Age, Blood pressure, Clinical features, Duration of symptoms and Diabetes) is used to identify patients having a transient ischemic attack who are at high risk for imminent stroke. However, despite its widespread implementation, the ABCD2 score has not yet been prospectively validated. We assessed the accuracy of the ABCD2 score for predicting stroke at 7 (primary outcome) and 90 days.

Methods:

This prospective cohort study enrolled adults from eight Canadian emergency departments who had received a diagnosis of transient ischemic attack. Physicians completed data forms with the ABCD2 score before disposition. The outcome criterion, stroke, was established by a treating neurologist or by an Adjudication Committee. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity for predicting stroke 7 and 90 days after visiting the emergency department using the original “high-risk” cutpoint of an ABCD2 score of more than 5, and the American Heart Association recommendation of a score of more than 2.

Results:

We enrolled 2056 patients (mean age 68.0 yr, 1046 (50.9%) women) who had a rate of stroke of 1.8% at 7 days and 3.2% at 90 days. An ABCD2 score of more than 5 had a sensitivity of 31.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 19.1–47.5) for stroke at 7 days and 29.2% (95% CI 19.6–41.2) for stroke at 90 days. An ABCD2 score of more than 2 resulted in sensitivity of 94.7% (95% CI 82.7–98.5) for stroke at 7 days with a specificity of 12.5% (95% CI 11.2–14.1). The accuracy of the ABCD2 score as calculated by either the enrolling physician (area under the curve 0.56; 95% CI 0.47–0.65) or the coordinating centre (area under the curve 0.65; 95% CI 0.57–0.73) was poor.

Interpretation:

This multicentre prospective study involving patients in emergency departments with transient ischemic attack found the ABCD2 score to be inaccurate, at any cut-point, as a predictor of imminent stroke. Furthermore, the ABCD2 score of more than 2 that is recommended by the American Heart Association is nonspecific.There are approximately 100 visits to the emergency department per 100 000 population for transient ischemic attack each year.¹ Although often considered benign, transient ischemic attack carries a risk of imminent stroke. Studies have shown that the risk of stroke is 0.2%–10% within 7 days of the first transient ischemic attack, and this risk increases to 1.2%–12% at 90 days.^2–9 Stroke continues to be the leading cause of disability among adults and the third-leading cause of death in North America.^10,11 Identifying people with transient ischemic attack who are at high risk of stroke is an opportunity to prevent stroke.^3,4 However, urgent investigation of all transient ischemic attacks would require substantial resources. Three studies have attempted to develop clinical decision rules (i.e., scores) for assessing whether a patient with transient ischemic attack is at high risk of stroke.^9,12,13 Combined, these studies led to the development of the ABCD2 (Age, Blood pressure, Clinical features, Duration of symptoms and Diabetes) score. However, despite its widespread implementation, the ABCD2 score has not yet been prospectively validated.^12,14–18 This essential step in the development of rules for making clinical predictions has recently been requested.^14,19–21The objective of this study was to externally validate the ABCD2 score as a tool for identifying patients seen in the emergency department with transient ischemic attack who are at high risk of stroke within 7 (primary outcome) and 90 days (one of the secondary outcomes).     

CATCH: a clinical decision rule for the use of computed tomography in children with minor head injury

Background

There is controversy about which children with minor head injury need to undergo computed tomography (CT). We aimed to develop a highly sensitive clinical decision rule for the use of CT in children with minor head injury.

Methods

For this multicentre cohort study, we enrolled consecutive children with blunt head trauma presenting with a score of 13–15 on the Glasgow Coma Scale and loss of consciousness, amnesia, disorientation, persistent vomiting or irritability. For each child, staff in the emergency department completed a standardized assessment form before any CT. The main outcomes were need for neurologic intervention and presence of brain injury as determined by CT. We developed a decision rule by using recursive partitioning to combine variables that were both reliable and strongly associated with the outcome measures and thus to find the best combinations of predictor variables that were highly sensitive for detecting the outcome measures with maximal specificity.

Results

Among the 3866 patients enrolled (mean age 9.2 years), 95 (2.5%) had a score of 13 on the Glasgow Coma Scale, 282 (7.3%) had a score of 14, and 3489 (90.2%) had a score of 15. CT revealed that 159 (4.1%) had a brain injury, and 24 (0.6%) underwent neurologic intervention. We derived a decision rule for CT of the head consisting of four high-risk factors (failure to reach score of 15 on the Glasgow coma scale within two hours, suspicion of open skull fracture, worsening headache and irritability) and three additional medium-risk factors (large, boggy hematoma of the scalp; signs of basal skull fracture; dangerous mechanism of injury). The high-risk factors were 100.0% sensitive (95% CI 86.2%–100.0%) for predicting the need for neurologic intervention and would require that 30.2% of patients undergo CT. The medium-risk factors resulted in 98.1% sensitivity (95% CI 94.6%–99.4%) for the prediction of brain injury by CT and would require that 52.0% of patients undergo CT.

Interpretation

The decision rule developed in this study identifies children at two levels of risk. Once the decision rule has been prospectively validated, it has the potential to standardize and improve the use of CT for children with minor head injury.Each year more than 650 000 children are seen in hospital emergency departments in North America with “minor head injury,” i.e., history of loss of consciousness, amnesia or disorientation in a patient who is conscious and responsive in the emergency department (Glasgow Coma Scale score¹ 13–15). Although most patients with minor head injury can be discharged after a period of observation, a small proportion experience deterioration of their condition and need to undergo neurosurgical intervention for intracranial hematoma.^2–4 The use of computed tomography (CT) in the emergency department is important in the early diagnosis of these intracranial hematomas.Over the past decade the use of CT for minor head injury has become increasingly common, while its diagnostic yield has remained low. In Canadian pediatric emergency departments the use of CT for minor head injury increased from 15% in 1995 to 53% in 2005.^5,6 Despite this increase, a small but important number of pediatric intracranial hematomas are missed in Canadian emergency departments at the first visit.³ Few children with minor head injury have a visible brain injury on CT (4%–7%), and only 0.5% have an intracranial lesion requiring urgent neurosurgical intervention.^5,7 The increased use of CT adds substantially to health care costs and exposes a large number of children each year to the potentially harmful effects of ionizing radiation.^8,9 Currently, there are no widely accepted, evidence-based guidelines on the use of CT for children with minor head injury.A clinical decision rule incorporates three or more variables from the history, physical examination or simple tests^10.11 into a tool that helps clinicians to make diagnostic or therapeutic decisions at the bedside. Members of our group have developed decision rules to allow physicians to be more selective in the use of radiography for children with injuries of the ankle¹² and knee,¹³ as well as for adults with injuries of the ankle,^14–17 knee,^18–20 head^21,22 and cervical spine.^23,24 The aim of this study was to prospectively derive an accurate and reliable clinical decision rule for the use of CT for children with minor head injury.     

Risk of infection following a visit to the emergency department: a cohort study

Background:

The risk of infection following a visit to the emergency department is unknown. We explored this risk among elderly residents of long-term care facilities.

Methods:

We compared the rates of new respiratory and gastrointestinal infections among elderly residents aged 65 years and older of 22 long-term care facilities. We used standardized surveillance definitions. For each resident who visited the emergency department during the study period, we randomly selected two residents who did not visit the emergency department and matched them by facility unit, age and sex. We calculated the rates and proportions of new infections, and we used conditional logistic regression to adjust for potential confounding variables.

Results:

In total, we included 1269 residents of long-term care facilities, including 424 who visited the emergency department during the study. The baseline characteristics of residents who did or did not visit the emergency department were similar, except for underlying health status (visited the emergency department: mean Charlson Comorbidity Index 6.1, standard deviation [SD] 2.5; did not visit the emergency department: mean Charlson Comorbidity index 5.5, SD 2.7; p < 0.001) and the proportion who had visitors (visited the emergency department: 46.9%; did not visit the emergency department: 39.2%; p = 0.01). Overall, 21 (5.0%) residents who visited the emergency department and 17 (2.0%) who did not visit the emergency department acquired new infections. The incidence of new infections was 8.3/1000 patient-days among those who visited the emergency department and 3.4/1000 patient-days among those who did not visit the emergency department. The adjusted odds ratio for the risk of infection following a visit to the emergency department was 3.9 (95% confidence interval 1.4–10.8).

Interpretation:

A visit to the emergency department was associated with more than a threefold increased risk of acute infection among elderly people. Additional precautions should be considered for residents following a visit to the emergency department.Infections associated with health care are an important health risk. A recent survey by the World Health Organization reported that 8.7% of patients in hospital developed such infections.^1,2 The third leading cause of death in the United States is health care–associated deaths, with over 100 000 people dying from infections associated with health care each year.³ In Canada, a point-prevalence survey found that 11.6% of adults in hospital experience a health care–associated infection.⁴Little attention has been paid to infections acquired in other health care settings. Visiting an emergency department has been identified as a risk for disease during outbreaks of measles^5,6 and SARS,^7,8 but little is known about the potential risk of endemic infection from exposure in this setting. A visit to the emergency department differs from a stay in hospital: exposure and duration of contact with other patients is shorter, but the number and density of patients with acute illness with whom there could be contact is higher.Elderly residents of long-term care facilities are likely to be at the greatest risk of morbidity and mortality from communicable diseases acquired in the emergency department. When residents are transferred to the emergency department for assessment, they are likely to have longer stays and to be cared for in multibed observation areas and corridors.⁹ If they acquire an infection while in the emergency department, these residents may be the source of an outbreak upon return to their facility; this can lead to increases in workload and costs. A Canadian study estimated the cost of an influenza outbreak to be over $6000 per 30-day period, with an estimated incidence of death of 0.75/100 residents during the same period.¹⁰ In this study, we explored the risk of acute respiratory and gastrointestinal infection associated with a visit to the emergency department among elderly residents of long-term care facilities.     

Factors associated with physician follow-up among patients with chest pain discharged from the emergency department

Background:

Many patients with chest pain do not receive follow-up from a physician after discharge from the emergency department despite significant survival benefit associated with follow-up care. Our objective was to evaluate factors associated with physician follow-up to understand this gap in practice.

Methods:

We conducted an observational study involving patients at high risk who were assessed for chest pain and discharged from an emergency department in Ontario between April 2004 and March 2010. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine the association of clinical and nonclinical characteristics with physician follow-up.

Results:

We identified 56 767 patients, of whom 25.1% did not receive any follow-up by a physician, 69.0% were seen by their primary care physician, and 17.3% were seen by a cardiologist within 30 days. Patients who had medical comorbidities and cardiac conditions such as myocardial infarction or heart failure were less likely to have follow-up. In contrast, a previous visit to a primary care physician was associated with the highest odds of having physician follow-up (odds ratio [OR] 6.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.91–7.01). Similarly, a previous visit to a cardiologist was strongly associated with follow-up by a cardiologist (OR 3.01, 95% CI 2.85–3.17). Patients evaluated in emergency departments with the highest tertile of chest pain volume were more likely to receive follow-up from any physician (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.31–1.77) and from a cardiologist (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.61–2.57).

Interpretation:

Nonclinical factors are strongly associated with physician follow-up for patients with chest pain after discharge from the emergency department. However, patients with comorbidities and at higher risk for future adverse events are less likely to receive follow-up care.Chest pain is one of the most common presenting symptoms in emergency departments. In Canada, about 500 000 visits to the emergency department are related to chest pain assessment each year.¹ Most of these visits result in discharge after excluding a cardiac diagnosis with an immediate risk of adverse effect.² Current clinical guidelines strongly advocate for patients with chest pain who have been discharged from the emergency department to receive outpatient follow-up with a physician within 72 hours for further assessment or treatment, because many patients remain at risk for future events.³Among patients at high baseline cardiovascular risk who were discharged from the emergency department after assessment of chest pain, our group has previously shown significantly reduced hazard of death or myocardial infarction associated with follow-up with either a primary care physician or a cardiologist within 30 days.² At 1-year postassessment, the rate of death or myocardial infarction was 5.5% among patients who received cardiologist follow-up, 7.7% with primary care follow-up and 8.6% with no physician follow-up.² In addition, we found a considerable gap in practice, with 1 in 4 high-risk patients with chest pain failing to follow-up with a physician within 30 days of assessment in Ontario, Canada.² A better understanding of why physician follow-up does not occur in accordance with guidelines is essential to improve the transition of care from the emergency department to home. Thus, the main objective of our study was to evaluate clinical and nonclinical factors associated with physician follow-up among patients with chest pain after discharge from the emergency department.     

Involving patients in cardiovascular risk management with nurse-led clinics: a cluster randomized controlled trial

Background

Preventive guidelines on cardiovascular risk management recommend lifestyle changes. Support for lifestyle changes may be a useful task for practice nurses, but the effect of such interventions in primary prevention is not clear. We examined the effect of involving patients in nurse-led cardiovascular risk management on lifestyle adherence and cardiovascular risk.

Methods

We performed a cluster randomized controlled trial in 25 practices that included 615 patients. The intervention consisted of nurse-led cardiovascular risk management, including risk assessment, risk communication, a decision aid and adapted motivational interviewing. The control group received a minimal nurse-led intervention. The self-reported outcome measures at one year were smoking, alcohol use, diet and physical activity. Nurses assessed 10-year cardiovascular mortality risk after one year.

Results

There were no significant differences between the intervention groups. The effect of the intervention on the consumption of vegetables and physical activity was small, and some differences were only significant for subgroups. The effects of the intervention on the intake of fat, fruit and alcohol and smoking were not significant. We found no effect between the groups for cardiovascular 10-year risk.

Interpretation

Nurse-led risk communication, use of a decision aid and adapted motivational interviewing did not lead to relevant differences between the groups in terms of lifestyle changes or cardiovascular risk, despite significant within-group differences.It is not clear if programs for lifestyle change are effective in the primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases. Some studies have shown lifestyle improvements with cardiovascular rehabilitation programs,^1–3 and studies in primary prevention have suggested small, but potentially important, reductions in the risk of cardiovascular disease. However, these studies have had limitations and have recommended further research.^4,5 According to national and international guidelines for cardiovascular risk management, measures to prevent cardiovascular disease, such as patient education and support for lifestyle change, can be delegated to practice nurses in primary care.^6–8 However, we do not know whether the delivery of primary prevention programs by practice nurses is effective. We also do no know the effect of nurse-led prevention, including shared decision-making and risk communication, on cardiovascular risk.Because an unhealthy lifestyle plays an important role in the development of cardiovascular disease,^9,10 preventive guidelines on cardiovascular disease and diabetes recommend education and counselling about smoking, diet, physical exercise and alcohol consumption for patients with moderately and highly increased risk.^6,11 These patients are usually monitored in primary care practices. The adherence to lifestyle advice ranges from 20% to 90%,^12–15 and improving adherence requires effective interventions, comprising cognitive, behavioural and affective components (strategies to influence adherence to lifestyle advice via feelings and emotions or social relationships and social supports).¹⁶ Shared treatment decisions are highly preferred. Informed and shared decision-making requires that all information about the cardiovascular risk and the pros and cons of the risk-reduction options be shared with the patient, and that the patients’ individual values, personal resources and capacity for self-determination be respected.^17–19 In our cardiovascular risk reduction study,²⁰ we developed an innovative implementation strategy that included a central role for practice nurses. Key elements of our intervention included risk assessment, risk communication, use of a decision aid and adapted motivational interviewing (Box 1).^19,21,22

Box 1.?Key features of the nurse-led intervention

• Risk assessment (intervention and control): The absolute 10-year mortality risk from cardiovascular diseases was assessed with use of a risk table from the Dutch guidelines (for patients without diabetes) or the UK Prospective Diabetes Study risk engine (for patients with diabetes).^6,23 Nurses in the control group continued to provide usual care after this step.
• Risk communication (intervention only): Nurses informed the patients of their absolute 10-year cardiovascular mortality risk using a risk communication tool developed for this study.^24–37
• Decision support (intervention only): Nurses provied support to the patients using an updated decision aid.²⁸ This tool facilitated the nurses’ interaction with the patients to arrive at informed, value-based choices for risk reduction. The tool provided information about the options and their associated relevant outcomes.
• Adapted motivational interviewing (intervention only): Nurses discussed the options for risk reduction. The patient’s personal values were elicited using adapted motivational interviewing.

In the present study, we investigated whether a nurse-led intervention in primary care had a positive effect on lifestyle and 10-year cardiovascular risk. We hypothesized that involving patients in decision-making would increase adherence to lifestyle changes and decrease the absolute risk of 10-year cardiovascular mortality.     

Clinical characteristics associated with adverse events in patients with exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a prospective cohort study

Background:

To assist physicians with difficult decisions about hospital admission for patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) presenting in the emergency department, we sought to identify clinical characteristics associated with serious adverse events.

Methods:

We conducted this prospective cohort study in 6 large Canadian academic emergency departments. Patients were assessed for standardized clinical variables and then followed for serious adverse events, defined as death, intubation, admission to a monitored unit or new visit to the emergency department requiring admission.

Results:

We enrolled 945 patients, of whom 354 (37.5%) were admitted to hospital. Of 74 (7.8%) patients with a subsequent serious adverse event, 36 (49%) had not been admitted after the initial emergency visit. Multivariable modelling identified 5 variables that were independently associated with adverse events: prior intubation, initial heart rate ≥ 110/minute, being too ill to do a walk test, hemoglobin < 100 g/L and urea ≥ 12 mmol/L. A preliminary risk scale incorporating these and 5 other clinical variables produced risk categories ranging from 2.2% for a score of 0 to 91.4% for a score of 10. Using a risk score of 2 or higher as a threshold for admission would capture all patients with a predicted risk of adverse events of 7.2% or higher, while only slightly increasing admission rates, from 37.5% to 43.2%.

Interpretation:

In Canada, many patients with COPD suffer a serious adverse event or death after being discharged home from the emergency department. We identified high-risk characteristics and developed a preliminary risk scale that, once validated, could be used to stratify the likelihood of poor outcomes and to enable rational and safe admission decisions.Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a respiratory disorder caused largely by smoking and characterized by progressive, incompletely reversible airflow obstruction, is a leading cause of hospital admission among older people. Patients who experience frequent exacerbations of COPD are at higher risk of death.¹ Return to the emergency department within 30 days because of worsening respiratory symptoms was reported for 35% of COPD patients discharged from Canadian academic emergency departments.²An important challenge facing physicians when treating patients with COPD exacerbation is deciding who should be admitted. Many of these patients will have a response to therapy in the emergency department and will not benefit from admission to hospital. A small but important number of patients have serious adverse events after hospital admission, such as death, mechanical ventilation or myocardial infarction. Others are discharged after prolonged management in the emergency department, only to experience a serious adverse event or return later to be admitted. These outcomes are important because many jurisdictions have a shortage of hospital beds and many emergency departments are overcrowded. There is, however, little evidence about risk factors for adverse events in patients with COPD to aid with disposition decisions in the emergency department, and existing guidelines are consensus based and have not been validated.^3–5The overall goal of this study was to evaluate patients with acute exacerbation of COPD seen in the emergency department to determine the clinical characteristics associated with short-term serious adverse events. Once validated, this information should help in efforts to improve and standardize admission practices for patients with COPD seeen in the emergency department, diminishing both unnecessary admissions and unsafe discharge decisions.     

Ruling out coronary artery disease in primary care: development and validation of a simple prediction rule

Background

Chest pain can be caused by various conditions, with life-threatening cardiac disease being of greatest concern. Prediction scores to rule out coronary artery disease have been developed for use in emergency settings. We developed and validated a simple prediction rule for use in primary care.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional diagnostic study in 74 primary care practices in Germany. Primary care physicians recruited all consecutive patients who presented with chest pain (n = 1249) and recorded symptoms and findings for each patient (derivation cohort). An independent expert panel reviewed follow-up data obtained at six weeks and six months on symptoms, investigations, hospital admissions and medications to determine the presence or absence of coronary artery disease. Adjusted odds ratios of relevant variables were used to develop a prediction rule. We calculated measures of diagnostic accuracy for different cut-off values for the prediction scores using data derived from another prospective primary care study (validation cohort).

Results

The prediction rule contained five determinants (age/sex, known vascular disease, patient assumes pain is of cardiac origin, pain is worse during exercise, and pain is not reproducible by palpation), with the score ranging from 0 to 5 points. The area under the curve (receiver operating characteristic curve) was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83–0.91) for the derivation cohort and 0.90 (95% CI 0.87–0.93) for the validation cohort. The best overall discrimination was with a cut-off value of 3 (positive result 3–5 points; negative result ≤ 2 points), which had a sensitivity of 87.1% (95% CI 79.9%–94.2%) and a specificity of 80.8% (77.6%–83.9%).

Interpretation

The prediction rule for coronary artery disease in primary care proved to be robust in the validation cohort. It can help to rule out coronary artery disease in patients presenting with chest pain in primary care.Chest pain is common. Studies have shown a lifetime prevalence of 20% to 40% in the general population.¹ Its prevalence in primary care ranges from 0.7% to 2.7% depending on inclusion criteria and country,^2–4 with coronary artery disease being the underlying cause in about 12% of primary care patients.^1,5 General practitioners are challenged to identify serious cardiac disease reliably and also protect patients from unnecessary investigations and hospital admissions. Because electrocardiography and the cardiac troponin test are of limited value in primary care,^6,7 history taking and physical examination remain the main diagnostic tools.Most published studies on the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms for acute coronary events have been conducted in high-prevalence settings such as hospital emergency departments.^8–10 Predictive scores have also been developed for use in emergency departments, mainly for the diagnosis of acute coronary syndromes.^11–13 To what degree these apply in primary care is unknown.^14–16A clinical prediction score to rule out coronary artery disease in general practice has been developed.¹⁷ However, it did not perform well when validated externally. The aim of our study was to develop a simple, valid and usable prediction score based on signs and symptoms to help primary care physicians rule out coronary artery disease in patients presenting with chest pain.     

Risk of hypoglycemia following intensification of metformin treatment with insulin versus sulfonylurea

Background:

Hypoglycemia remains a common life-threatening event associated with diabetes treatment. We compared the risk of first or recurrent hypoglycemia event among metformin initiators who intensified treatment with insulin versus sulfonylurea.

Methods:

We assembled a retrospective cohort using databases of the Veterans Health Administration, Medicare and the National Death Index. Metformin initiators who intensified treatment with insulin or sulfonylurea were followed to either their first or recurrent hypoglycemia event using Cox proportional hazard models. Hypoglycemia was defined as hospital admission or an emergency department visit for hypoglycemia, or an outpatient blood glucose value of less than 3.3 mmol/L. We conducted additional analyses for risk of first hypoglycemia event, with death as the competing risk.

Results:

Among 178 341 metformin initiators, 2948 added insulin and 39 990 added sulfonylurea. Propensity score matching yielded 2436 patients taking metformin plus insulin and 12 180 taking metformin plus sulfonylurea. Patients took metformin for a median of 14 (interquartile range [IQR] 5–30) months, and the median glycated hemoglobin level was 8.1% (IQR 7.2%–9.9%) at intensification. In the group who added insulin, 121 first hypoglycemia events occurred, and 466 first events occurred in the group who added sulfonylurea (30.9 v. 24.6 events per 1000 person-years; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06–1.59). For recurrent hypoglycemia, there were 159 events in the insulin group and 585 events in the sulfonylurea group (39.1 v. 30.0 per 1000 person-years; adjusted HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.12–1.72). In separate competing risk analyses, the adjusted HR for hypoglycemia was 1.28 (95% CI 1.04–1.56).

Interpretation:

Among patients using metformin who could use either insulin or sulfonylurea, the addition of insulin was associated with a higher risk of hypoglycemia than the addition of sulfonylurea. This finding should be considered by patients and clinicians when discussing the risks and benefits of adding insulin versus a sulfonylurea.Hypoglycemia remains one of the most common medication-related adverse events among patients with diabetes and a leading cause of hospital admissions and emergency department visits.^1,2 It is a concern to patients and clinicians and a strong determinant of treatment choices.³ Hypoglycemic medications account for 25% of emergency hospital admissions for adverse drug events among patients aged 65 years and older.^2,4 Multiple factors predispose patients with diabetes to hypoglycemia, including older age, polypharmacy, poor nutrition, underlying illness, alcohol use and declining renal function.^5,6 Intensive glucose-control treatment for patients with these factors is strongly associated with hypoglycemia.^6,7Consensus statements by major diabetes associations, including the Canadian Diabetes Association, recommend lifestyle modification and metformin as first-line therapies for type 2 diabetes, with the goal of treatment being a glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1C) level of 7% or less for many patients.^8,9 Multiple options are listed as acceptable add-on treatments. Sulfonylurea is easier to initiate, but insulin dose can be modified in response to daily variation in food intake, exercise or other variables that cause fluctuations in glucose values. Within the Veterans Health Administration clinical practice guideline, both the combination of metformin plus sulfonylurea or the use of bedtime insulin combined with metformin are considered acceptable based on level I evidence.¹⁰ To make well-informed decisions about treatment regimens, patients and providers need to understand clinical benefits, such as improvement in microvascular outcomes,¹¹ and harms, such as hypoglycemia.We recently reported that intensification of metformin with insulin compared with sulfonylurea was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality among veterans with diabetes.¹² Evidence for a causal relation between hypoglycemia and cardiovascular disease or death is limited, because patients at risk for hypoglycemia also have factors that increase their risk for those outcomes.^7,13–15 Both sulfonylurea and insulin are associated with an elevated risk of hypoglycemia compared with metformin.^5,7,16–18 We sought to test the hypothesis that using the combination of metformin plus insulin was associated with a greater risk of serious hypoglycemia than using metformin plus sulfonylurea.     

Emergency health care use and follow-up among sociodemographic groups of children who visit emergency departments for mental health crises

Background:

Previous studies of differences in mental health care associated with children’s sociodemographic status have focused on access to community care. We examined differences associated with visits to the emergency department.

Methods:

We conducted a 6-year population-based cohort analysis using administrative databases of visits (n = 30 656) by children aged less than 18 years (n = 20 956) in Alberta. We measured differences in the number of visits by socioeconomic and First Nations status using directly standardized rates. We examined time to return to the emergency department using a Cox regression model, and we evaluated time to follow-up with a physician by physician type using a competing risks model.

Results:

First Nations children aged 15–17 years had the highest rate of visits for girls (7047 per 100 000 children) and boys (5787 per 100 000 children); children in the same age group from families not receiving government subsidy had the lowest rates (girls: 2155 per 100 000 children; boys: 1323 per 100 000 children). First Nations children (hazard ratio [HR] 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30–2.05), and children from families receiving government subsidies (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.30–1.98) had a higher risk of return to an emergency department for mental health care than other children. The longest median time to follow-up with a physician was among First Nations children (79 d; 95% CI 60–91 d); this status predicted longer time to a psychiatrist (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.32–0.70). Age, sex, diagnosis and clinical acuity also explained post-crisis use of health care.

Interpretation:

More visits to the emergency department for mental health crises were made by First Nations children and children from families receiving a subsidy. Sociodemographics predicted risk of return to the emergency department and follow-up care with a physician.Emergency departments are a critical access point for mental health care for children who have been unable to receive care elsewhere or are in crisis.¹ Care provided in an emergency department can stabilize acute problems and facilitate urgent follow-up for symptom management and family support.^1,2Race, ethnic background and socioeconomic status have been linked to a crisis-oriented care patterns among American children.^3,4 Minority children are less likely than white children to have received mental health treatment before an emergency department visit,^3,4 and uninsured children are less likely to receive an urgent mental health evaluation when needed.⁴ Other studies, however, have shown no relation between sociodemographic status and mental health care,^5,6 and it may be that different health system characteristics (e.g., pay-for-service, insurance coverage, publicly funded care) interact with sociodemographic status to influence how mental health resources are used. Canadian studies are largely absent in this discussion, despite a known relation between lower income and poorer mental health status,⁷ nationwide documentation of disparities faced by Aboriginal children,^8–10 and government-commissioned reviews that highlight deficits in universal access to mental health care.¹¹We undertook the current study to examine whether sociodemographic differences exist in the rates of visits to emergency departments for mental health care and in the use of post-crisis health care services for children in Alberta. Knowledge of whether differences exist for children with mental health needs may help identify children who could benefit from earlier intervention to prevent illness destabilization and children who may be disadvantaged in the period after the emergency department visit. We hypothesized that higher rates of emergency department use, lower rates of follow-up physician visits after the initial emergency department visit, and a longer time to physician follow-up would be observed among First Nations children and children from families receiving government social assistance.     

Reduction of radial-head subluxation in children by triage nurses in the emergency department: a cluster-randomized controlled trial

Background:

Radial-head subluxation is an easily identified and treated injury. We investigated whether triage nurses in the emergency department can safely reduce radial-head subluxation at rates that are not substantially lower than those of emergency department physicians.

Methods:

We performed an open, noninferiority, cluster-randomized control trial. Children aged 6 years and younger who presented to the emergency department with a presentation consistent with radial-head subluxation and who had sustained a known injury in the previous 12 hours were assigned to either nurse-initiated or physician-initiated treatment, depending on the day. The primary outcome was the proportion of children who had a successful reduction (return to normal arm usage). We used a noninferiority margin of 10%.

Results:

In total, 268 children were eligible for inclusion and 245 were included in the final analysis. Of the children assigned to receive physician-initiated care, 96.7% (117/121) had a successful reduction performed by a physician. Of the children assigned to receive nurse-treatment care, 84.7% (105/124) had a successful reduction performed by a nurse. The difference in the proportion of successful radial head subluxations between the groups was 12.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.8% to 19.7%). Noninferiority of nurse-initiated radial head subluxation was not shown.

Interpretation:

In this trial, the rate of successful radial-head subluxation performed by nurses was inferior to the physician success rate. Although the success rate in the nurse-initiated care group did not meet the non-inferiority margin, nurses were able to reduce radial head subluxation for almost 85% of children who presented with probable radial-head subluxation. Trial registration: Clinical Trials.gov, no. {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00993954","term_id":"NCT00993954"}}NCT00993954.Radial-head subluxation is a common arm injury among young children and often results in a visit to the emergency department.¹ This type of injury occurs when forceful longitudinal traction is applied to an extended and pronated forearm.² Radial-head subluxation is easily recognized by its clinical presentation and can be treated by a simple reduction technique involving hyperpronation or supination and flexion of the injured arm.^3–7Despite the ease of diagnosis and treatment, children with radial-head subluxation often wait hours in the emergency department for a reduction that takes minutes to perform.⁸ These visits have direct health care costs and involve time and stress for the child and their family. Early treatment and shorter wait times correlate with patient satisfaction.^9,10 Patient satisfaction is comparable when minor injuries are cared for by a nurse instead of by a physician.^11–13 Nurse-initiated treatments are increasingly a focus of health care.^14–17Treatment of radial-head subluxation is an appropriate area to consider nurse-initiated care. Our objective was to determine whether triage nurses, trained in the recognition and treatment of radial-head subluxation, could successfully reduce radial-head subluxation at a rate similar to that of physicians.     

The effect of helmets on the risk of head and neck injuries among skiers and snowboarders: a meta-analysis

Background

The prevention of head injuries in alpine activities has focused on helmets. However, no systematic review has examined the effect of helmets on head and neck injuries among skiers and snowboarders.

Methods

We searched electronic databases, conference proceedings and reference lists using a combination of the key words “head injury or head trauma,” “helmet” and “skiing or snowboarding.” We included studies that used a control group; compared skiers or snowboarders with and without helmets; and measured at least one objectively quantified outcome (e.g., head injury, and neck or cervical injury).

Results

We included 10 case–control, 1 case–control/case-crossover and 1 cohort study in our analysis. The pooled odds ratio (OR) indicated that skiers and snowboarders with a helmet were significantly less likely than those without a helmet to have a head injury (OR 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55–0.79). The result was similar for studies that used controls without an injury (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.36–0.92), those that used controls with an injury other than a head or neck injury (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.52–0.80) and studies that included children under the age of 13 years (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.27–0.59). Helmets were not associated with an increased risk of neck injury (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.72–1.09).

Interpretation

Our findings show that helmets reduce the risk of head injury among skiers and snowboarders with no evidence of an increased risk of neck injury.Skiing and snowboarding are popular winter activities.¹ Estimates from numerous countries indicate that head injuries account for 9% to 19%, and neck injuries for 1% to 4%, of all injuries reported by ski patrols and emergency departments.^2–11 Rates of head and neck injuries have been reported between 0.09 and 0.46 per 1000 outings.¹² Head and neck injuries are disproportionately represented in cases of severe trauma, and traumatic brain injury is the leading cause of death and serious injury among skiers and snow-boarders.¹³ As far back as 1983, Oh and Schmid recommended mandatory helmet use for children while skiing.¹⁴Many studies of the relation between helmet use and head injuries among skiers and snowboarders have found a protective effect.^15–24 It has been suggested that the use of helmets may increase the risk of neck injury in a crash or fall.²⁵ This may be more evident among children because they have a greater head:body ratio than adults, and the additional size and weight of the helmet may increase the risk of neck injury in an otherwise routine fall.²⁶ We conducted a systematic review of the effect of helmets on head and neck injuries among skiers and snowboarders.     

Cancer risk related to low-dose ionizing radiation from cardiac imaging in patients after acute myocardial infarction

Background

Patients exposed to low-dose ionizing radiation from cardiac imaging and therapeutic procedures after acute myocardial infarction may be at increased risk of cancer.

Methods

Using an administrative database, we selected a cohort of patients who had an acute myocardial infarction between April 1996 and March 2006 and no history of cancer. We documented all cardiac imaging and therapeutic procedures involving low-dose ionizing radiation. The primary outcome was risk of cancer. Statistical analyses were performed using a time-dependent Cox model adjusted for age, sex and exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from noncardiac imaging to account for work-up of cancer.

Results

Of the 82 861 patients included in the cohort, 77% underwent at least one cardiac imaging or therapeutic procedure involving low-dose ionizing radiation in the first year after acute myocardial infarction. The cumulative exposure to radiation from cardiac procedures was 5.3 milliSieverts (mSv) per patient-year, of which 84% occurred during the first year after acute myocardial infarction. A total of 12 020 incident cancers were diagnosed during the follow-up period. There was a dose-dependent relation between exposure to radiation from cardiac procedures and subsequent risk of cancer. For every 10 mSv of low-dose ionizing radiation, there was a 3% increase in the risk of age- and sex-adjusted cancer over a mean follow-up period of five years (hazard ratio 1.003 per milliSievert, 95% confidence interval 1.002–1.004).

Interpretation

Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from cardiac imaging and therapeutic procedures after acute myocardial infarction is associated with an increased risk of cancer.Studies involving atomic bomb survivors have documented an increased incidence of malignant neoplasm related to the radiation exposure.^1–4 Survivors who were farther from the epicentre of the blast had a lower incidence of cancer, whereas those who were closer had a higher incidence.⁵ Similar risk estimates have been reported among workers in nuclear plants.⁶ However, little is known about the relation between exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical procedures and the risk of cancer.In the past six decades since the atomic bomb explosions, most individuals worldwide have had minimal exposure to ionizing radiation. However, the recent increase in the use of medical imaging and therapeutic procedures involving low-dose ionizing radiation has led to a growing concern that individual patients may be at increased risk of cancer.^7–12 Whereas strict regulatory control is placed on occupational exposure at work sites, no such control exists among patients who are exposed to such radiation.^13–16It is not only the frequency of these procedures that is increasing. Newer types of imaging procedures are using higher doses of low-dose ionizing radiation than those used with more traditional procedures.^8,11 Among patients being evaluated for coronary artery disease, for example, coronary computed tomography is increasingly being used. This test may be used in addition to other tests such as nuclear scans, coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention, each of which exposes the patient to low-dose ionizing radiation.^12,17–21 Imaging procedures provide information that can be used to predict the prognosis of patients with coronary artery disease. Since such predictions do not necessarily translate into better clinical outcomes,^8,12 the prognostic value obtained from imaging procedures using low-dose ionizing radiation needs to be balanced against the potential for risk.Authors of several studies have estimated that the risk of cancer is not negligible among patients exposed to low-dose ionizing radiation.^22–27 To our knowledge, none of these studies directly linked cumulative exposure and cancer risk. We examined a cohort of patients who had acute myocardial infarction and measured the association between low-dose ionizing radiation from cardiac imaging and therapeutic procedures and the risk of cancer.     

Telehealthcare for asthma: a Cochrane review

Background:

Telehealthcare has the potential to provide care for long-term conditions that are increasingly prevalent, such as asthma. We conducted a systematic review of studies of telehealthcare interventions used for the treatment of asthma to determine whether such approaches to care are effective.

Methods:

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, which is derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases including CENTRAL (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and PsycINFO, as well as other electronic resources. We also searched registers of ongoing and unpublished trials. We were interested in studies that measured the following outcomes: quality of life, number of visits to the emergency department and number of admissions to hospital. Two reviewers identified studies for inclusion in our meta-analysis. We extracted data and used fixedeffect modelling for the meta-analyses.

Results:

We identified 21 randomized controlled trials for inclusion in our analysis. The methods of telehealthcare intervention these studies investigated were the telephone and video- and Internet-based models of care. Meta-analysis did not show a clinically important improvement in patients’ quality of life, and there was no significant change in the number of visits to the emergency department over 12 months. There was a significant reduction in the number of patients admitted to hospital once or more over 12 months (risk ratio 0.25 [95% confidence interval 0.09 to 0.66]).

Interpretation:

We found no evidence of a clinically important impact on patients’ quality of life, but telehealthcare interventions do appear to have the potential to reduce the risk of admission to hospital, particularly for patients with severe asthma. Further research is required to clarify the cost-effectiveness of models of care based on telehealthcare.There has been an increase in the prevalence of asthma in recent decades,^1–3 and the Global Initiative for Asthma estimates that 300 million people worldwide now have the disease.⁴ The highest prevalence rates (30%) are seen in economically developed countries.^5–8 There has also been an increase in the prevalence of asthma affecting both children and adults in many economically developing and transition countries.^9–11Asthma’s high burden of disease requires improvements in access to treatments.^7,12,13 Patterns of help-seeking behaviour are also relevant: delayed reporting is associated with morbidity and the need for emergency care.It is widely believed that telehealthcare interventions may help address some of the challenges posed by asthma by enabling remote delivery of care, facilitating timely access to health advice, supporting self-monitoring and medication concordance, and educating patients on avoiding triggers.^14–16 The precise role of these technologies in the management of care for people with long-term respiratory conditions needs to be established.¹⁷The objective of this study was to systematically review the effectiveness of telehealthcare interventions among people with asthma in terms of quality of life, number of visits to the emergency department and admissions to hospital for exacerbations of asthma.     

Trajectories of relative weight and waist circumference among children with and without developmental coordination disorder

Background

Children with developmental coordination disorder have been found to be less likely to participate in physical activities and therefore may be at increased risk of overweight and obesity. We examined the longitudinal course of relative weight and waist circumference among school-aged children with and without possible developmental coordination disorder.

Methods

We received permission from 75 (83%) of 92 schools in southwestern Ontario, Canada, to enrol children in the fourth grade (ages 9 and 10 at baseline). Informed consent from the parents of 2278 (95.8%) of 2378 children in these schools was obtained at baseline. The main outcome measures were body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference. Children were followed up over two years, from the spring of 2005 to the spring of 2007.

Results

Over the course of the study, we identified 111 children (46 boys and 65 girls) who had possible developmental coordination disorder. These children had a higher mean BMI and waist circumference at baseline than did those without the disorder; these differences persisted or increased slightly over time. Children with possible developmental coordination disorder were also at persistently greater risk of overweight (odds ratio [OR] 3.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.34–5.07) and obesity (OR 4.00, 95% CI 2.57–6.21) over the course of the study.

Interpretation

Our findings showed that children with possible developmental coordination disorder were at greater risk of overweight and obesity than children without the disorder. This risk did not diminish over the study period.Developmental coordination disorder is a neuro-developmental condition that affects 5%–6% of school-aged children.¹ Children with the disorder present with a range of coordination difficulties, including fine and gross motor problems,² all of which interfere with normal daily activities, recreational activities and academic performance skills such as handwriting.³ Developmental coordination disorder is diagnosed when existing neurologic and physical problems are ruled out as the cause of motor coordination difficulties and intellectual development has been taken into consideration (Box 1).^1,4 The clinical implications of a diagnosis have been described previously.⁵

Box 1.?Diagnostic criteria for developmental coordination disorder

1. Performance in daily activities that require motor coordination is substantially below that expected given the person’s chronological age and measured intelligence. This may be manifested by marked delays in achieving motor milestones (e.g., walking, crawling, sitting), dropping things, “clumsiness,” poor performance in sports or poor handwriting.
2. The disturbance in criterion A significantly interferes with academic achievement or activities of daily living.
3. The disturbance is not due to a general medical condition (e.g., cerebral palsy, hemiplegia or muscular dystrophy) and does not meet criteria for a pervasive developmental disorder.
4. If mental retardation is present, the motor difficulties are in excess of those usually associated with it.

Reproduced with permission from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Text Revision, Fourth Edition.⁴ Copyright © 2000 American Psychiatric Association.Because children with developmental coordination disorder have been found to be less likely to participate in physical activities,⁶ it has been hypothesized that this condition may be a risk factor for obesity.⁷ Only a few studies have examined the association between motor coordination problems and overweight or obesity in children.^7–10 Moreover, the literature in this area is limited in two key respects. First, previous research has relied almost exclusively on body mass index (BMI) as the outcome measure.^8–10 Although important, BMI is not the only indicator of relative weight and has been shown to be weakly correlated with fat mass in young children.^11,12 Waist circumference provides valid estimates of abdominal fat in pediatric populations¹³ and appears to be a stronger predictor of cardiovascular risk among children.^14,15 Second, previous research in this area has been limited to cross-sectional data, with two notable exceptions.^8,9 However, results from these two prospective studies were mixed: one study showed a significant effect of motor coordination on weight,⁸ the other did not.⁹Our objective was to document several measures of adiposity over time in children with and without developmental coordination disorder.     

Derivation and validation of an index to predict early death or unplanned readmission after discharge from hospital to the community

Background

Readmissions to hospital are common, costly and often preventable. An easy-to-use index to quantify the risk of readmission or death after discharge from hospital would help clinicians identify patients who might benefit from more intensive post-discharge care. We sought to derive and validate an index to predict the risk of death or unplanned readmission within 30 days after discharge from hospital to the community.

Methods

In a prospective cohort study, 48 patient-level and admission-level variables were collected for 4812 medical and surgical patients who were discharged to the community from 11 hospitals in Ontario. We used a split-sample design to derive and validate an index to predict the risk of death or nonelective readmission within 30 days after discharge. This index was externally validated using administrative data in a random selection of 1 000 000 Ontarians discharged from hospital between 2004 and 2008.

Results

Of the 4812 participating patients, 385 (8.0%) died or were readmitted on an unplanned basis within 30 days after discharge. Variables independently associated with this outcome (from which we derived the nmemonic “LACE”) included length of stay (“L”); acuity of the admission (“A”); comorbidity of the patient (measured with the Charlson comorbidity index score) (“C”); and emergency department use (measured as the number of visits in the six months before admission) (“E”). Scores using the LACE index ranged from 0 (2.0% expected risk of death or urgent readmission within 30 days) to 19 (43.7% expected risk). The LACE index was discriminative (C statistic 0.684) and very accurate (Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic 14.1, p = 0.59) at predicting outcome risk.

Interpretation

The LACE index can be used to quantify risk of death or unplanned readmission within 30 days after discharge from hospital. This index can be used with both primary and administrative data. Further research is required to determine whether such quantification changes patient care or outcomes.Readmission to hospital and death are adverse patient outcomes that are serious, common and costly.^1,2 Several studies suggest that focused care after discharge can improve post-discharge outcomes.^3–7 Being able to accurately predict the risk of poor outcomes after hospital discharge would allow health care workers to focus post-discharge interventions on patients who are at highest risk of poor post-discharge outcomes. Further, policy-makers have expressed interest in either penalizing hospitals with relatively high rates of readmission or rewarding hospitals with relatively low expected rates.⁸ To implement this approach, a validated method of standardizing readmission rates is needed.⁹Two validated models for predicting risk of readmission after hospital discharge have been published.^10,11 However, these models are impractical to clinicians. Both require area-level information (e.g., neighbourhood socio-economic status and community-specific rates of admission) that is not readily available. Getting this information requires access to detailed tables, thereby making the model impractical. Second, both models are so complex that risk estimates cannot be attained from them without the aid of special software. Although these models have been used by health-system planners in the United Kingdom, we are unaware of any clinicians who use them when preparing patients for hospital discharge.Our primary objective was to derive and validate a clinically useful index to quantify the risk of early death or unplanned readmission among patients discharged from hospital to the community.