Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
J Emerg Med ; 57(4): 437-443, 2019 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31506197

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines emphasize identifying atrial fibrillation (AF) as a strategy to reduce stroke risk. Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) interrogation at the point of care may facilitate AF detection, increasing opportunities to identify patients at high risk for stroke. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to quantify AF prevalence and assess stroke risk in patients with a CIED who presented to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This noninterventional, retrospective observational study included adult patients who presented at a single facility ED that incorporated device interrogation as a routine standard practice for all patients with a CIED. Interrogations were conducted in 494 unique patients, and relevant demographic/clinical information was captured from electronic medical records. RESULTS: AF was detected via CIED interrogation in 54.8% (271/494) of the unique patient population that presented to the ED. Device interrogation detected the presence of AF in 110 patients without a documented past history or current diagnosis of AF, representing 22.3% (110/494) of total unique patients. Based on CHA2DS2-VASc (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age > 75 years, Diabetes mellitus, prior Stroke or transient ischemic attack or thromboembolism, Vascular disease, Age 65-74 years, Sex category [female]) risk scoring methodology, over three-quarters of these newly detected AF patients (78.2%, 86/110) were classified in a high stroke risk category that reflected a > 2.2% annualized risk, and over half (57.3%, 63/110) presented to the ED for reasons unrelated to cardiac/dysrhythmia problems. CONCLUSIONS: The use of technology-assisted device interrogation of CIEDs at the point of care has promise in identifying patients with asymptomatic AF. Results suggest consideration of routine device interrogation of CIEDs in the ED, regardless of reason for admission or history of AF.


Subject(s)
Atrial Fibrillation/diagnosis , Defibrillators, Implantable/adverse effects , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Atrial Fibrillation/epidemiology , California/epidemiology , Defibrillators, Implantable/statistics & numerical data , Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors
2.
Obstet Gynecol ; 109(1): 48-55, 2007 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17197587

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of teamwork training on the occurrence of adverse outcomes and process of care in labor and delivery. METHODS: A cluster-randomized controlled trial was conducted at seven intervention and eight control hospitals. The intervention was a standardized teamwork training curriculum based on crew resource management that emphasized communication and team structure. The primary outcome was the proportion of deliveries at 20 weeks or more of gestation in which one or more adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes or both occurred (Adverse Outcome Index). Additional outcomes included 11 clinical process measures. RESULTS: A total of 1,307 personnel were trained and 28,536 deliveries analyzed. At baseline, there were no differences in demographic or delivery characteristics between the groups. The mean Adverse Outcome Index prevalence was similar in the control and intervention groups, both at baseline and after implementation of teamwork training (9.4% versus 9.0% and 7.2% versus 8.3%, respectively). The intracluster correlation coefficient was 0.015, with a resultant wide confidence interval for the difference in mean Adverse Outcome Index between groups (-5.6% to 3.2%). One process measure, the time from the decision to perform an immediate cesarean delivery to the incision, differed significantly after team training (33.3 minutes versus 21.2 minutes, P=.03). CONCLUSION: Training, as was conducted and implemented, did not transfer to a detectable impact in this study. The Adverse Outcome Index could be an important tool for comparing obstetric outcomes within and between institutions to help guide quality improvement. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: (www.ClinicalTrials.gov), NCT00381056 LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.


Subject(s)
Delivery, Obstetric/adverse effects , Inservice Training , Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Hospital/standards , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care/methods , Patient Care Team , Female , Humans , Pregnancy
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...