ALARMED: adverse events in low-risk patients with chest pain receiving continuous electrocardiographic monitoring in the emergency department. A pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: Current guidelines suggest that most patients who present to an emergency department (ED) with chest pain should be placed on a continuous electrocardiographic monitoring (CEM) device. We evaluated the utility of CEM in ED patients with chest pain. METHODS: We enrolled stable patients who presented to a single ED with chest pain suspected to be ischemic in origin and who were placed on CEM. Patients were classified according to risk of poor outcome using 3 published stratification tools. Trained observers prospectively recorded number of monitored hours, alarms, changes in management, and monitor-detected adverse events (AEs). The primary outcome measure was the rate of AEs detected by CEM. Secondary outcome measures were the rate of alarms that resulted in a change in management and number of false alarms. RESULTS: We enrolled 72 patients, 56% of whom were categorized as very low-risk by Goldman risk criteria. During 371 monitored hours, we recorded 1762 alarms or 4.7 alarms per monitored hour. There were 11 AEs (0.68%; 95% CI, 0.35%-1.2%), 3 of which resulted in a change in management (0.2%; 95% CI, 0.04%-0.5%). Seven AEs were bradydysrhythmias with a heart rate of 45 or higher; the eighth patient had no change in symptoms and was given atropine for a heart rate of 32. The other 3 AEs were an untreated supraventricular tachycardia, a brief sinus pause that triggered a rate change in intravenous nitroglycerin by the patient's nurse, and a run of premature ventricular contractions after which heparin was administered. None of the 3 patients with a change in management was categorized as the lowest-risk. CONCLUSIONS: Routine CEM in low-risk ED patients with chest pain results in an excessive number of alarms, most of which require no change in management. In these patients, the benefit of CEM may be limited, and given that 99.4% of alarms were false, current CEM technology needs to be improved.

Effect of patient socioeconomic status on perceptions of first- and second-year medical students.

BACKGROUND: Physician decision-making and perceptions of patients are affected by a patient's socioeconomic status (SES). We sought to determine if the perceptions of first- and second-year medical students are similarly affected. We also wanted to determine whether a student's own SES affects his or her perceptions of patients from a low or high SES background. METHODS: Two similar videos of a physician-patient interview were created. One video featured a patient of apparently high SES and the other featured a patient of apparently low SES. Differences in SES were portrayed by means of clothing, accessories and dialogue. First- and second-year medical students at the University of Western Ontario were recruited to view 1 of the videos and to answer a questionnaire using a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 205 (89%) of the 231 medical students invited to participate. Respondents' perceptions of the low SES and high SES patients were significantly different in the following respects. The low SES patient was perceived to be less compliant in taking medications and less likely to return for follow-up visits; was perceived to have a lower level of social support, poorer overall health and a worse prognosis; and was perceived to be more adversely affected in his occupational duties by illness (p < 0.05). Furthermore, second-year students who watched the video with the low SES patient were less inclined to want that patient in their practice than second-year students who watched the video with the high SES patient (p = 0.032). One hundred and six students (52%) were categorized as having high SES and 37 (18%) as having low SES (the remaining students were categorized as having mid-level SES). Among students who watched the video with the low SES patient, the level of agreement with the statement "This person is the kind of patient I would like to have in my practice" was greater among low SES students than among high SES students (p = 0.012). INTERPRETATION: First- and second-year medical students have negative perceptions of low SES patients on several dimensions.