Severity of diagnosis among patients with chest pain presenting to the emergency department after calling a nurse line.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A Nurse Line (NL) is a resource that is commonly used by patients and hospitals to assist in the triage of patient medical complaints. We sought to determine whether patients with chief complaint of chest pain who presented to the ED after calling a NL were different from patients who presented directly to the ED. The primary aim was to test for differences in the severity of the causes of chest pain between the two groups. METHODS: This was a retrospective case-control chart review study. Data collected included demographic data, comorbidities, ED orders, ED interventions, patient primary diagnosis and disposition. RESULTS: 350 patients were included in the analysis: 175 patients called the NL and 175 age/sex matched patients did not call the NL. The mean age was 58.3 (SD 16.4; range 19.1-93.3) and 53.7% of patients were female. Race was similar between the groups. Patients were more likely to go directly to the ED without calling a NL if they had comorbidities. Among the total cohort, 36 patients were deemed to have a serious diagnosis related to the pain; this did not differ between groups (16 NL, 20 non-NL; OR = 1.11 95%CI 0.55-2.23). There were no differences of ED work-up or hospital admission (50 NL, 67 non-NL; OR = 0.85 95%CI 0.51-1.42) between the groups. CONCLUSION: NL call was not associated with differences in severity of diagnosis, work-up, hospital admission or patient demographics. Patients who presented to the ED with chest pain without calling a NL had more comorbidities.

Inter-rater agreement and checklist validation for postoperative wound assessment using smartphone images in vascular surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common nosocomial infection, in vascular surgery patients, who experience a high rate of readmission. Facilitating transition from hospital to outpatient care with digital image-based wound monitoring has the potential to detect and to enable treatment of SSI at an early stage. In this study, we evaluated whether smartphone digital images can supplant in-person evaluation of postoperative vascular surgery wounds. METHODS: We developed a wound assessment checklist using previously validated criteria. We recruited adults who underwent a vascular surgical procedure between 2014 and 2015, involving an incision of at least 3 cm, from a high-volume academic vascular surgery service. Vascular surgery care providers evaluated wounds in person using the assessment checklist; a different group of providers evaluated wounds by a smartphone digital image. Inter-rater agreement coefficients for wound characteristics and treatment plan were calculated within and between the in-person group and the digital image group; the sensitivity and specificity of digital images relative to in-person evaluation were determined. RESULTS: We assessed a total of 80 wounds. Regardless of modality, inter-rater agreement was poor when wounds were evaluated for the presence of ecchymosis and redness; moderate for cellulitis; and high for the presence of a drain, necrosis, or dehiscence. As expected, the presence of drainage was more readily observed in person. Inter-rater agreement was high for both in-person and image-based assessment with respect to course of treatment, with near-perfect agreement for treatments ranging from antibiotics to surgical débridement to hospital readmission. No difference in agreement emerged when raters evaluated poor-quality compared with high-quality images. For most parameters, specificity was higher than sensitivity for image-based compared with "gold standard" in-person assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Using smartphone digital images is a valid method for evaluating postoperative vascular surgery wounds and is comparable to in-person evaluation with regard to most wound characteristics. The inter-rater reliability for determining treatment recommendations was universally high. Remote wound monitoring and assessment may play an integral role in future transitional care models to decrease readmission for SSI in vascular or other surgical patients. These findings will inform smartphone implementation in the clinical care setting as wound images transition from informal clinical communication to becoming part of the care standard.

Predictors of surgical site infection after hospital discharge in patients undergoing major vascular surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most common postoperative complications after vascular reconstruction, producing significant morbidity and hospital readmission. In contrast to SSI that develops while patients are still hospitalized, little is known about the cohort of patients who develop SSI after discharge. In this study, we explore the factors that lead to postdischarge SSI, investigate the differences between risk factors for in-hospital vs postdischarge SSI, and develop a scoring system to identify patients who might benefit from postdischarge monitoring of their wounds. METHODS: Patients who underwent major vascular surgery from 2005 to 2012 for aneurysm and lower extremity occlusive disease were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant Use Files. Patients were categorized as having no SSI, in-hospital SSI, or SSI after hospital discharge. Predictors of postdischarge SSI were determined by multivariable logistic regression and internally validated by bootstrap resampling. Risk scores were assigned to all significant variables in the model. Summative risk scores were collapsed into quartile-based ordinal categories and defined as low, low/moderate, moderate/high, and high risk. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine predictors of in-hospital SSI. RESULTS: Of the 49,817 patients who underwent major vascular surgery, 4449 (8.9%) were diagnosed with SSI (2.1% in-hospital SSI; 6.9% postdischarge SSI). By multivariable analysis, factors significantly associated with increased odds of postdischarge SSI include female gender, obesity, diabetes, smoking, hypertension, coronary artery disease, critical limb ischemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dyspnea, neurologic disease, prolonged operative time >4 hours, American Society of Anesthesiology class 4 or 5, lower extremity revascularization or aortoiliac procedure, and groin anastomosis. The model exhibited moderate discrimination (bias-corrected C statistic, 0.691) and excellent internal calibration. The postdischarge SSI rate was 2.1% for low-risk patients, 5.1% for low/moderate-risk patients, 7.8% for moderate/high-risk patients, and 14% for high-risk patients. In a comparative analysis, comorbidities were the primary driver of postdischarge SSI, whereas in-hospital factors (operative time, emergency case status) and complications predicted in-hospital SSI. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of SSIs after major vascular surgery develop following hospital discharge. We have created a scoring system that can select a cohort of patients at high risk for SSI after discharge. These patients can be targeted for transitional care efforts focused on early detection and treatment with the goal of reducing morbidity and preventing readmission secondary to SSI.

Conceptualizing smartphone use in outpatient wound assessment: patients' and caregivers' willingness to use technology.

BACKGROUND: Information technology is transforming health care communication. Using smartphones to remotely monitor incisional wounds via digital photos as well as collect postoperative symptom information has the potential to improve patient outcomes and transitional care. We surveyed a vulnerable patient population to evaluate smartphone capability and willingness to adopt this technology. METHODS: We surveyed 53 patients over a 9-mo period on the vascular surgery service at a tertiary care institution. Descriptive statistics were calculated to describe survey item response. RESULTS: A total of 94% of recruited patients (50 of 53) participated. The cohort was 50% female, and the mean age was age 70 y (range: 41-87). The majority of patients owned cell phones (80%) and 23% of these cell phones were smartphones. Ninety percent of patients had a friend or family member that could help take and send photos with a smartphone. Ninety-two percent of patients reported they would be willing to take a digital photo of their wound via a smartphone (68% daily, 22% every other day, 2% less than every other day, and 8% not at all). All patients reported they would be willing to answer questions related to their health via a smartphone. Patients identified several potential difficulties with regard to adopting a smartphone wound-monitoring protocol including logistics related to taking photos, health-related questions, and coordination with caretakers. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey demonstrates that an older patient cohort with significant comorbidity is able and willing to adopt a smartphone-based postoperative monitoring program. Patient training and caregiver participation will be essential to the success of this intervention.