ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Urinalysis is the most popular test for evaluating emergency room patients with possible urinary tract infections (UTIs). Due to their speed and inexpensive cost, urine dipsticks are frequently performed in the Emergency Room. Although a urine dipstick test may be less expensive and time-saving than a laboratory study, it may not be accurate. The study evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of urine dipstick and microscopic urinalysis with a urine culture. METHODOLOGY: A prospective, observational study was conducted on adults who visited the Emergency Department at King Fahd Specialist Hospital in Buraydah and reported having dysuria, urine urgency, or frequency, as well as suprapubic or costovertebral angle soreness. Patients who could not give a trustworthy history, had symptoms of vaginal discharge, or had taken antibiotics within the previous 72 hours were excluded. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-three urine samples were collected and examined using urinalysis and dipstick. In addition, 113 (73.86%) of 153 urine samples exhibited no growth in urine culture. With a count of nine, Escherichia coli (E. coli) was the most often isolated organism among the positive cultures (5.88%). Klebsiella pneumoniae was the second most common in our sample with eight (5.23%). The urine dipstick was shown to have an overall sensitivity of 0.79, specificity of 0.39, positive productive value (PPV) of 0.30, and negative productive value (NPV) of 0.85. Urinalysis exhibited a high sensitivity of 0.95 and a poor specificity of 0.21. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that urine dipsticks may be more beneficial than urinalysis for ruling out urinary tract infections (UTIs), while urinalysis may be more helpful in verifying their presence.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This cross-sectional descriptive study aimed to ascertain the prevalence of non-urgent cases, investigate gender and age preferences, and explore factors influencing individuals' selection of the emergency department (ED) for non-urgent cases in the Al-Qassim region of Saudi Arabia. METHODS: From July 15, 2022, to December 31, 2022, a structured online questionnaire via a Google Docs survey collected data. The study sampled 425 patients from two prominent Al-Qassim healthcare institutions: Buraydah King Fahad Specialized Hospital and Buraydah Central Hospital. Encompassing patients aged 20 to 80 admitted to the ED between 8:00 and 16:00, concurrent with primary healthcare center availability, the study categorized participants by urgency using the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) criteria. Data analysis employed descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and probit regression in R version 4.3.3, with a significance level of p < 0.05 for result interpretation. RESULTS: In Al-Qassim in 2022, 82.4% of ED visitors sought care for non-urgent cases, while 17.6% sought care for urgent cases. No statistically significant relationship was found between age and gender and urgent ED visits. Among those with non-urgent conditions, the top reasons for bypassing primary healthcare services were slow treatment (52.7%), lack of knowledge about primary healthcare (PHC) services (33.9%), and appointment unavailability (5.5%). Evaluation of awareness of the ED triage system showed a significant difference only among patients with excellent awareness. CONCLUSION: The investigation found a higher prevalence of non-urgent cases, especially among females. Challenges in appointment booking, accessibility, and the perception of urgency were key factors leading patients to choose the emergency department over PHC centers. The study emphasized the crucial role of ED triage system awareness and the impact of satisfaction with PHC services on healthcare-seeking behavior, with younger individuals less likely to visit the ED and males more inclined at specific satisfaction levels.
