Patient and provider perceptions of why patients seek care in emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about why patients choose emergency departments (EDs) to receive care. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to measure the distribution and frequency of the stated reasons why patients choose the ED for care and why primary care physicians (PCPs) think their patients utilize the ED. METHODS: The authors conducted a survey of patients presenting to an ED with 92,000 annual visits. Appropriate parametric tests were used for univariate and multivariate analysis and results were presented as frequencies with 95% confidence intervals. The authors also performed a cross-sectional survey of PCPs through a web-based survey. RESULTS: Of the 1515 patients approached, 1083 (71%) agreed to participate and 1062 (98%) of them completed the survey. The most common reason patients gave for coming to the ED was their belief that their problem was serious (61%), followed by being referred (35%). In addition, 48% came at the advice of a provider, family member, or friend. By self-report, 354 (33%) patients attempted to reach their PCPs and 306 (86%) of them were successful. Two hundred and seventy-five PCPs were also surveyed. The most frequent reasons PCPs thought their patients came to an ED were that the patient chose to go on their own (80%) and the patients felt that they were too sick to be seen in the PCP's office (80%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients stated that the most common reason for seeking care in an ED was that they thought their problem was serious. Almost half sought ED care on the advice of a family member, friend, or health care provider, and a sizable minority were actually referred in by a health care provider. PCPs agree that most patients come to EDs because they believe they are too sick to be seen in their office or become sick after office hours.

Self-expanding polyurethane polymer improves survival in a model of noncompressible massive abdominal hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Intracavitary noncompressible hemorrhage remains a significant cause of preventable death on the battlefield. Two dynamically mixed and percutaneously injected liquids were engineered to create an in situ self-expanding polymer foam to facilitate hemostasis in massive bleeding. We hypothesized that intraperitoneal injection of the polymer could achieve conformal contact with sites of injury and improve survival in swine with lethal hepatoportal injury. METHODS: High grade hepatoportal injury was created in a closed abdominal cavity, resulting in massive noncoagulopathic, noncompressible hemorrhage. Animals received either standard battlefield fluid resuscitation (control, n = 12) or fluid resuscitation plus intraperitoneal injection of hemostatic foam (polymer, n = 15) and were monitored for 3 hours. Blood loss was quantified, and all hepatoportal injuries were inspected for consistency. RESULTS: Before intervention, all animals initially experienced severe, profound hypotension and near-arrest (mean arterial pressure at 10 minutes, 21 [5.3] mm Hg). Overall survival at 3 hours was 73% in the polymer group and 8% in the control group (p = 0.001). Median survival time was more than 150 minutes in the polymer group versus 23 minutes (19-41.5 minutes) in the control group (p < 0.001), and normalized blood loss in the polymer group was 0.47 (0.30) g/kg per minute versus 3.0 (1.3) g/kg per minute in the controls (p = < 0.001). All hepatoportal injuries were anatomically similar, and the polymer had conformal contact with injured tissues. CONCLUSION: Intraperitoneal polymer injection during massive noncompressible hemorrhage reduces blood loss and improves survival in a lethal, closed-cavity, hepatoportal injury model. Chronic safety and additional efficacy studies in other models are needed.

Emergency physician estimates of the probability of acute coronary syndrome in a cohort of patients enrolled in a study of coronary computed tomographic angiography.

INTRODUCTION: Little information exists regarding how accurately emergency physicians (EPs) predict the probability of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Our objective was to determine if EPs can accurately predict ACS in a prospectively identified cohort of emergency department (ED) patients who met enrolment criteria for a study of coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) and were admitted for a "rule out ACS" protocol. METHODS: A prospective observational pilot study in an academic medical centre was carried out. EPs caring for patients with chest pain provided whole-number estimates of the probability of ACS after clinical review. This substudy was part of the now published Rule Out Myocardial Infarction/Ischemia Using Computer Assisted Tomography (ROMICAT) study, a study of CCTA and admission of patients for a rule out ACS protocol after a nondiagnostic evaluation. Predictions were grouped into probability groups based on the validated Goldman criteria. ACS was determined by an adjudication committee using American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/European Society of Cardiology guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 334 predictions were obtained for a study population with a mean age of 54 (SD 12) years, 63% of whom were male. There were 35 ACS events. EPs predicted ACS better than by chance, and increasingly higher estimates were associated with a higher incidence of ACS (p = 0.0004). The percentage of patients with ACS was 0%, 6%, 7%, and 17%, respectively, for very low, low, intermediate, and high probability groups. EPs' estimates had a sensitivity of 63% using a > 20% probability of ACS to define a positive test. Lowering this threshold to > 7% to define a test as positive increased the sensitivity of physician estimates to 89% but lowered specificity from 65% to 24%. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that for a selected ED cohort meeting eligibility criteria for a study of CCTA, EPs predict ACS better than by chance, with an increasing proportion of patients proving to have ACS with increasing probability estimates. Lowering the estimate threshold does not result in an overall sensitivity level that is sufficient to send patients home from the ED and is associated with a poor specificity.

A prospective study of symptom distress and return to baseline function after open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: We assessed and compared outcomes following open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who were scheduled to undergo open or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy were enrolled in the study and followed prospectively. Before surgery the patients were administered a multi-item validated questionnaire, and were followed by telephone and with mail questionnaires periodically for 12 months. Complications were recorded from chart review and compared. Symptom distress and return to baseline for various parameters were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Of the patients 102 who underwent open prostatectomy and 104 treated with laparoscopic prostatectomy were enrolled in the study. At 1 year 90% in the open and 91% in the laparoscopic group returned the questionnaire. Symptom distress between the 2 groups did not differ at any time during followup. There was no significant difference in return to baseline at 1 year for continence, erectile function or physical function. Of the patients 95% had a return to baseline physical function, approximately 90% do not wear a pad and approximately 50% returned to baseline erectile function with or without phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors at 1 year. Although complications were few there was a significant difference in the number for laparoscopic vs open prostatectomy with a slightly higher rate of hematuria and lymphocele formation in the laparoscopic group. Cancer control at 1 year was excellent in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Radical prostatectomy is an effective form of therapy for patients with clinically localized cancer of the prostate. The open and laparoscopic techniques have similar functional outcomes, and these data provide patients a realistic view of what to expect following these 2 methods of radical prostatectomy.

Association between long-term blood pressure variability and mortality among incident hemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure variability (BPV) is one putative risk factor for cardiovascular disease and mortality in hemodialysis patients. The purposes of this study are to identify a suitable metric of long-term BPV in this population and determine whether an association between BPV and all-cause mortality exists. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS: Patients from the Accelerated Mortality on Renal Replacement (ArMORR) cohort who were adult, incident to hemodialysis at any Fresenius Medical Care unit between June 2004 and August 2005, and had suitable blood pressure data were studied (n = 6,961). PREDICTOR: Predialysis blood pressures measured between dialysis days 91 and 180 were used to determine each patient's absolute level of, trend in (slope over time), and variability in blood pressure. OUTCOME: All-cause mortality beginning immediately after day 180 and continuing through day 365 or until censoring (median follow-up, 185 days). RESULTS: Of the 4 candidate BPV metrics, only average residual-intercept ratio adequately distinguished BPV from absolute blood pressure level and temporal blood pressure trend. In the primary analysis, each SD increase in systolic and diastolic BPV was associated with adjusted hazard ratios for all-cause mortality of 1.13 (95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 1.23) and 1.15 (95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 1.26), respectively. Results were consistent across multiple sensitivity analyses in which inclusion and exclusion criteria and timing of blood pressure measurements were varied. LIMITATIONS: Contingency of results on the validity of mathematic description of BPV; potential for misclassification bias and residual confounding. CONCLUSIONS: Provided the mathematical descriptions of BPV are valid, the data suggest that systolic and diastolic BPV is associated with all-cause mortality in incident hemodialysis patients. Additional study is necessary to confirm and generalize findings, assess the interplay between systolic and diastolic BPV, and assess causality.

Reactions of potential jurors to a hypothetical malpractice suit: alleging failure to perform a prostate-specific antigen test.

We conducted focus groups with 47 potential jurors who were presented with different scenarios in a hypothetical malpractice case involving failure to order a PSA test. Better documentation that a patient made an informed decision to decline a PSA test appeared to provide more medical-legal protection for physicians, especially with the use of a decision aid.