Primary care for nontraumatic illness at the emergency department and the family physician's office.

A total of 1117 visits by patients to two hospital emergency departments and 15 family physicians'' offices for nontraumatic complaints over two 2-week periods were studied. Patients visiting the two settings fell into two distinct subgroups, and they appeared to select where to seek care by the acuteness and duration of the complaint. Several highly significant differences were noted between the two groups: those who visited an emergency department had complaints of shorter duration, underwent more investigations (which more often gave abnormal results), were more likely to undergo investigation for mental symptoms, had more consultations, received counselling and drug therapy less often (but intramuscular injections more often), were admitted to hospital more often, returned for further care for the same complaint less often, complied with disposal instructions less often, were more likely to receive fewer than 5 days'' care and were less likely to receive more than 31 days'' care; those without a family physician more often received additional care (were referred, admitted or asked to return).     

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).     

Improving the care of patients with major trauma in the accident and emergency department.

OBJECTIVE--To determine whether improvement in the care of victims of major trauma could be made by using the revised trauma score as a triage tool to help junior accident and emergency doctors rapidly identify seriously injured patients and thereby call a senior accident and emergency specialist to supervise their resuscitation. DESIGN--Comparison of results of audit of management of all seriously injured patients before and after these measures were introduced. SETTING--Accident and emergency department in an urban hospital. PATIENTS--All seriously injured patients (injury severity score greater than 15) admitted to the department six months before and one year after introduction of the measures. RESULTS--Management errors were reduced from 58% (21/36) to 30% (16/54) (p less than 0.01). Correct treatment rather than improvement in diagnosis or investigation accounted for almost all the improvement. CONCLUSIONS--The management of seriously injured patients in the accident and emergency department can be improved by introducing two simple measures: using the revised trauma score as a triage tool to help junior doctors in the accident and emergency department rapidly identify seriously injured patients, and calling a senior accident and emergency specialist to supervise the resuscitation of all seriously injured patients. IMPLICATIONS--Care of patients in accident and emergency departments can be improved considerably at no additional expense by introducing two simple measures.     

Characteristics of chest pain in COVID-19 patients in the emergency department

IntroductionPatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can present with chest pain. However, the characteristics of this chest pain are unknown. We performed a single-centre observational study to review and summarise chest pain characteristics in COVID-19 patients at first presentation to the emergency department (ED).MethodsWe collected data on characteristics of ‘chest pain’ reported by COVID-19 patients who attended the ED of Bernhoven Hospital, the Netherlands from 4 through 30 March 2020.ResultsWe included 497 COVID-19 patients, of whom 83 (17%) reported chest pain upon presentation to the ED. Chest pain characteristics were: present since disease onset (88%), retrosternal location (43%), experienced as compressing/pressure pain (61%), no radiation (61%) and linked to heavy coughing (39%). Patients who reported chest pain were younger than those without chest pain (61 vs 73 years; p < 0.001). Patients with syncope were older (75 vs 72 years; p = 0.017), had a shorter duration of symptoms (5 vs 7 days; p < 0.001) and reported fewer respiratory complaints (68% vs 90%; p < 0.001) than those without syncope. Patients with new-onset atrial arrhythmias presented with a shorter duration of symptoms (5 vs 7 days; p = 0.013), experienced fewer respiratory complaints (72% vs 89%; p = 0.012) and more frequently had a history of cardiovascular disease (79% vs 50%; p = 0.003) than patients who presented without arrythmias.ConclusionChest pain and other cardiac symptoms were frequently observed in COVID-19 patients. Treating physicians should be aware that chest pain, arrhythmias and syncope can be presenting symptoms of COVID-19.Supplementary InformationThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-022-01730-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

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.     

Circadian-rhythm differences among emergency department patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation

The purpose of the study was determine whether patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation who present to the emergency department (ED) during the night (00:00 to 07:59 h) vs. other times of the day have more severe COPD exacerbation, require more intensive treatment, and have worse clinical outcomes. A multicenter cohort study was completed involving 29 EDs in the United States and Canada. Using a standard protocol, consecutive ED patients with COPD exacerbation were interviewed, and their charts were reviewed. Of 582 patients enrolled, 52% were women, and the median age was 71 yrs (interquartile range, 64-77 yrs). Nighttime patients (15% of cohort) did not differ from patients presenting at other times except that they were less likely to have private insurance, more likely to have a history of corticosteroid use, and have a shorter duration of symptoms exacerbation. Except for a few features indicative of more severe COPD exacerbation (such as higher respiratory rate at ED presentation, greater likelihood of receiving noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, and increased risk of endotracheal intubation), nighttime patients did not differ from other patients with respect to ED management. Nighttime patients were approximately three-fold more likely to be intubated in the ED (odds ratio, 3.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-10.9). There were no day-night differences regarding ED disposition and post-ED relapse. Except for some features indicating more severe exacerbation, nighttime ED patients had similar chronic COPD characteristics, received similar treatments in the ED, and had similar clinical outcomes compared with patients presenting to the ED at other times of the day.     

Major adverse cardiovascular events in older emergency department patients presenting with non-cardiac medical complaints

Netherlands Heart Journal - The risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) for older emergency department (ED) patients presenting with non-cardiac medical complaints is unknown. To apply...     

Mortality among patients with frequent emergency department use for alcohol-related reasons in Ontario: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND:Little is known about the risk of death among people who visit emergency departments frequently for alcohol-related reasons, including whether mortality risk increases with increasing frequency of visits. Our primary objective was to describe the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of this high-risk population and examine their 1-year overall mortality, premature mortality and cause of death as a function of emergency department visit frequency in Ontario, Canada.METHODS:We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using linked health administrative data (Jan. 1, 2010, to Dec. 31, 2016) in Ontario for people aged 16–105 years who made at least 2 emergency department visits for mental or behavioural disorders due to alcohol within 1 year. We subdivided the cohort based on visit frequency (2, 3 or 4, or ≥ 5). The primary outcome was 1-year mortality, adjusted for age, sex, income, rural residence and presence of comorbidities. We examined premature mortality using years of potential life lost (YPLL).RESULTS:Of the 25 813 people included in the cohort, 17 020 (65.9%) had 2 emergency department visits within 1 year, 5704 (22.1%) had 3 or 4 visits, and 3089 (12.0%) had 5 or more visits. Males, people aged 45–64 years, and those living in urban centres and lower-income neighbourhoods were more likely to have 3 or 4 visits, or 5 or more visits. The all-cause 1-year mortality rate was 5.4% overall, ranging from 4.7% among patients with 2 visits to 8.8% among those with 5 or more visits. Death due to external causes (e.g., suicide, accidents) was most common. The adjusted mortality rate was 38% higher for patients with 5 or more visits than for those with 2 visits (adjusted hazard ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.19–1.59). Among 25 298 people aged 16–74 years, this represented 30 607 YPLL.INTERPRETATION:We observed a high mortality rate among relatively young, mostly urban, lower-income people with frequent emergency department visits for alcohol-related reasons. These visits are opportunities for intervention in a high-risk population to reduce a substantial mortality burden.

Alcohol is a leading driver of morbidity and mortality worldwide.¹ An estimated 3 million deaths in 2016 — 5% of all global deaths — were attributable to alcohol consumption.² The 2016 Global Burden of Disease Study showed that alcohol was the single greatest risk factor for ill health worldwide among people aged 15–49 years.³ In Canada, hospital admissions for alcohol-attributable conditions out-number those for myocardial infarction.⁴ Alcohol-related harms cost Canadians about $14.6 billion annually, with $3.3 billion in health care costs.⁵In addition to the societal impact of mental and behavioural disorders due to alcohol (henceforth referred to as alcohol-related) — mainly acute intoxication and withdrawal — these disorders are common reasons for emergency department visits.^6,7 Data from the United States and Canada, furthermore, suggest that alcohol-related emergency department visits have increased in recent years.^8,9 For example, a study in Ontario showed that, between 2003 and 2016, the age-standardized rates of alcohol-attributable emergency department visits increased by 86.5% in women and 53.2% in men.⁸ People who visit emergency departments frequently for alcohol-related reasons have high levels of comorbidity and social disadvantage,^10,11 and represent a readily identifiable patient population for whom interventions to address unmet social and health care needs could be developed.^12–14 A systematic review suggested that screening and brief intervention for alcohol-related problems in the emergency department is a promising approach for reducing problematic alcohol consumption.¹³Despite this, little is known about the risk of death, a key outcome for health system performance, among people who use emergency departments frequently for alcohol-related reasons, including whether mortality risk increases with increasing frequency of visits. To address this gap, our primary objective was to describe the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of this high-risk population and examine their 1-year overall mortality, premature mortality and cause of death as a function of emergency department visit frequency in Ontario, the most populous Canadian province.¹⁵