Role of Artificial Intelligence in Improving Syncope Management.

Syncope is common in the general population and a common presenting symptom in acute care settings. Substantial costs are attributed to the care of patients with syncope. Current challenges include differentiating syncope from its mimickers, identifying serious underlying conditions that caused the syncope, and wide variations in current management. Although validated risk tools exist, especially for short-term prognosis, there is inconsistent application, and the current approach does not meet patient needs and expectations. Artificial intelligence (AI) techniques, such as machine learning methods including natural language processing, can potentially address the current challenges in syncope management. Preliminary evidence from published studies indicates that it is possible to accurately differentiate syncope from its mimickers and predict short-term prognosis and hospitalisation. More recently, AI analysis of electrocardiograms has shown promise in detection of serious structural and functional cardiac abnormalities, which has the potential to improve syncope care. Future AI studies have the potential to address current issues in syncope management. AI can automatically prognosticate risk in real time by accessing traditional and nontraditional data. However, steps to mitigate known problems such as generalisability, patient privacy, data protection, and liability will be needed. In the past AI has had limited impact due to underdeveloped analytical methods, lack of computing power, poor access to powerful computing systems, and availability of reliable high-quality data. All impediments except data have been solved. AI will live up to its promise to transform syncope care if the health care system can satisfy AI requirement of large scale, robust, accurate, and reliable data.

Flexible-Interval High-Sensitivity Troponin Velocity for the Detection of Acute Coronary Syndromes.

Many algorithms for emergency department (ED) evaluation of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) using high-sensitivity troponin assays rely on the detection of a "delta," the difference in concentration over a predetermined interval, but collecting specimens at specific times can be difficult in the ED. We evaluate the use of troponin "velocity," the rate of change of troponin concentration over a flexible short interval for the prediction of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 30 days. We conducted a prospective, observational study on a convenience sample of 821 patients who underwent ACS evaluation at a high-volume, urban ED. We determined the diagnostic performance of a novel velocity-based algorithm and compared the performance of 1- and 2-hour algorithms adapted from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) using delta versus velocity. A total of 7 of 332 patients (2.1%) classified as low risk by the velocity-based algorithm experienced a MACE by 30 days compared with 35 of 221 (13.8%) of patients classified as greater than low risk, yielding a sensitivity of 83.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 68.6% to 93.0%) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.9% (95% CI 95.9% to 98.9%). The ESC-derived algorithms using delta or velocity had NPVs ranging from 98.4% (95% CI 96.4% to 99.3%) to 99.6% (95% CI 97.0% to 99.9%) for 30-day MACEs. The NPV of the novel velocity-based algorithm for MACE at 30 days was borderline, but the substitution of troponin velocity for delta in the framework of the ESC algorithms performed well. In conclusion, specimen collection within strict time intervals may not be necessary for rapid evaluation of ACS with high-sensitivity troponin.

Evaluation of emergency department visits for mental health complaints during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in over 6 million deaths worldwide as of March 2022. Adverse psychological effects on patients and the general public linked to the pandemic have been well documented. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of adult emergency department (ED) encounters with diagnoses of anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes at a tertiary care hospital in New York City from March 15 through July 31, 2020 and compared it with ED encounters during the same time period in the previous 3 years (2017-2019). The relative risk (RR) of these diagnoses was calculated comparing a prepandemic sample to a pandemic sample, accounting for total volume of ED visits. Results: A total of 2816 patient encounters met the inclusion criteria. The study period in 2020 had 31.5% lower overall ED volume seen during the same time period in the previous 3 years (27,874 vs average 40,716 ED encounters). The risk of presenting with anxiety during the study period in 2020 compared to prior 3 years was 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21-1.63), for depression was 1.47 (95% CI 1.28-1.69), and for suicidal ideation was 1.05 (95% CI 0.90-1.23). There was an increase in admissions for depression during the pandemic period (15.2% increase, 95% CI 4.6%-25.7%). Conclusion: There was a relative increase in patients presenting to the ED with complaints of anxiety and depression during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, while absolute numbers remained stable. Our results highlight the importance of acute care-based mental health resources and interventions to support patients during this pandemic.

Development of a Novel Emergency Department Quality Measure to Reduce Very Low-Risk Syncope Hospitalizations.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Emergency department (ED) evaluations for syncope are common, representing 1.3 million annual US visits and $2 billion in related hospitalizations. Despite evidence supporting risk stratification and outpatient management, variation in syncope hospitalization rates persist. We sought to develop a new quality measure for very low-risk adult ED patients with syncope that could be applied to administrative data. METHODS: We developed this quality measure in 2 phases. First, we used an existing prospective, observational ED patient data set to identify a very low-risk cohort with unexplained syncope using 2 variables: age less than 50 years and no history of heart disease. We then applied this to the 2019 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) to assess its potential effect, assessing for hospital-level factors associated with hospitalization variation. RESULTS: Of the 8,647 adult patients in the prospective cohort, 3,292 (38%) patients fulfilled these 2 criteria: age less than 50 years and no history of heart disease. Of these, 15 (0.46%) suffered serious adverse events within 30 days. In the NEDS, there were an estimated 566,031 patients meeting these 2 criteria, of whom 15,507 (2.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.48% to 3.00%) were hospitalized. We found substantial variation in the hospitalization rates for this very low-risk cohort, with a median rate of 1.7% (range 0% to 100%; interquartile range 0% to 3.9%). Factors associated with increased hospitalization rates included a yearly ED volume of more than 80,000 (odds ratio [OR] 3.14; 95% CI 2.02 to 4.89) and metropolitan teaching status (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.24 to 1.81). CONCLUSION: In summary, our novel syncope quality measure can assess variation in low-value hospitalizations for unexplained syncope. The application of this measure could improve the value of syncope care.

Clinicians' perspectives on the implementation of patient decision aids in the emergency department: A qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVE: Decision aids (DAs) are tools to facilitate and standardize shared decision making (SDM). Although most emergency clinicians (ECs) perceive SDM appropriate for emergency care, there is limited uptake of DAs in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators identified by ECs regarding the implementation of DAs in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We conducted a qualitative interview study guided by implementation science frameworks. ECs participated in interviews focused on the implementation of DAs for the disposition of patients with low-risk chest pain and unexplained syncope in the ED. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We then iteratively developed a codebook with directed qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: We approached 25 ECs working in urban New York, of whom 20 agreed to be interviewed (mean age, 41 years; 25% women). The following 6 main barriers were identified: (1) poor DA accessibility, (2) concern for increased medicolegal risk, (3) lack of perceived need for a DA, (4) patient factors including lack of capacity and limited health literacy, (5) skepticism about validity of DAs, and (6) lack of time to use DAs. The 6 main facilitators identified were (1) positive attitudes toward SDM, (2) patient access to follow-up care, (3) potential for improved patient satisfaction, (4) potential for improved risk communication, (5) strategic integration of DAs into the clinical workflow, and (6) institutional support of DAs. CONCLUSIONS: ECs identified multiple barriers and facilitators to the implementation of DAs into clinical practice. These findings could guide implementation efforts targeting the uptake of DA use in the ED.

Guidelines for reasonable and appropriate care in the emergency department (GRACE): Recurrent, low-risk chest pain in the emergency department.

This first Guideline for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE-1) from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine is on the topic: Recurrent, Low-risk Chest Pain in the Emergency Department. The multidisciplinary guideline panel used The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding eight priority questions for adult patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain and have derived the following evidence based recommendations: (1) for those >3 h chest pain duration we suggest a single, high-sensitivity troponin below a validated threshold to reasonably exclude acute coronary syndrome (ACS) within 30 days; (2) for those with a normal stress test within the previous 12 months, we do not recommend repeat routine stress testing as a means to decrease rates of major adverse cardiac events at 30 days; (3) insufficient evidence to recommend hospitalization (either standard inpatient admission or observation stay) versus discharge as a strategy to mitigate major adverse cardiac events within 30 days; (4) for those with non-obstructive (<50% stenosis) coronary artery disease (CAD) on prior angiography within 5 years, we suggest referral for expedited outpatient testing as warranted rather than admission for inpatient evaluation; (5) for those with no occlusive CAD (0% stenosis) on prior angiography within 5 years, we recommend referral for expedited outpatient testing as warranted rather than admission for inpatient evaluation; (6) for those with a prior coronary computed tomographic angiography within the past 2 years with no coronary stenosis, we suggest no further diagnostic testing other than a single, normal high-sensitivity troponin below a validated threshold to exclude ACS within that 2 year time frame; (7) we suggest the use of depression and anxiety screening tools as these might have an effect on healthcare use and return emergency department (ED) visits; and (8) we suggest referral for anxiety or depression management, as this might have an impact on healthcare use and return ED visits.

Changes in alcohol-related hospital visits during COVID-19 in New York City.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Increased alcohol consumption has been proposed as a potential consequence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. There has been little scrutiny of alcohol use behaviors resulting in hospital visits, which is essential to guide pandemic public policy. We aimed to determine whether COVID-19 peak restrictions were associated with increased hospital visits for alcohol use or withdrawal. Secondary objectives were to describe differences based on age, sex and race, and to examine alcohol-related complication incidence. DESIGN: Multi-center, retrospective, pre-post study. SETTING: New York City health system with five participating hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adult emergency department encounters for alcohol use, alcoholic gastritis or pancreatitis or hepatitis, alcohol withdrawal syndrome, withdrawal seizure or delirium tremens. MEASUREMENTS: Age, sex, race, site and encounter diagnosis. Encounters were compared between 2019 and 2020 for 1 March to 31 May. FINDINGS: There were 2790 alcohol-related visits during the 2019 study period and 1793 in 2020, with a decrease in total hospital visits. Of 4583 alcohol-related visits, median age was 47 years, with 22.3% females. In 2020 there was an increase in percentage of visits for alcohol withdrawal [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.07-1.67] and withdrawal with complications (aOR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.14-1.72), and a decline in percentage of hospital visits for alcohol use (aOR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.59-0.85) and use with complications (aOR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.58-0.88). It is unknown whether use visit changes mirror declines in other chief complaints. The age groups 18-29 and 60-69 years were associated with increased visits for use and decreased visits for withdrawal, as were non-white race groups. Sex was not associated with alcohol-related visit changes despite male predominance. CONCLUSIONS: In New York City during the initial COVID-19 peak (1 March to 31 May 2020), hospital visits for alcohol withdrawal increased while those for alcohol use decreased.

An international survey of healthcare workers use of personal protective equipment during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known regarding the specific ways personal protective equipment (PPE) has been used and reused during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The objective of this study was to evaluate the patterns of PPE use and the impact of PPE availability on the attitudes and well-being of an international population of healthcare workers. METHODS: This was an online, cross-sectional survey of healthcare workers. The survey was disseminated internationally using social media, specialty society list-serves, and email augmented by snowball sampling to healthcare workers who provided direct care to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. The survey was conducted between April 13 and May 1, 2020. The primary outcome was self-reported PPE use during aerosol-generating medical procedures. Other outcomes included PPE use during care for respiratory patients in general, PPE reuse, PPE decontamination, and healthcare worker impressions related to their work and the pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 2227 healthcare workers from 23 countries completed the survey. The N95 was the most common respirator among the 1451 respondents who performed aerosol-generating procedures (n = 1050, 72.3%). Overall, 1783 (80.1%) of providers reported general reuse of PPE, which was similar across US regions but less common in Canada, Italy, and Spain. The most commonly reused item of PPE was the N95 respirator, with the majority of respondents who reused PPE reporting N95 reuse (n = 1157, 64.9%). Of the 1050 individuals who wore an N95 mask while performing an aerosol-generating medical procedure, 756 (72%) reported re-using an N95, and 344 (45.5%) reported reuse for >3 days. Qualitative results identified several common themes, including (1) lack of availability of PPE, (2) fear and anxiety as a result of inadequate PPE, (3) potential exposure to family members, and (4) concerns regarding workload and pay. CONCLUSIONS: This international survey of healthcare workers found that N95 respirators were commonly used to care for patients with respiratory symptoms with and without aerosol-generating medical procedures. Healthcare workers reported an unprecedented need to reuse PPE that was designed for single-use, specifically the N95 respirator. The reuse of PPE increased the perceived risk for COVID-19 infection and harmed mental health.

Shared Decision Making for Syncope in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Significant practice variation is seen in the management of syncope in the emergency department (ED). We sought to evaluate the feasibility of performing a randomized controlled trial of a shared decision making (SDM) tool for low-to-intermediate-risk syncope patients presenting to the ED. METHODS: We performed a randomized controlled trial of adults (≥30 years) with unexplained syncope who presented to an academic ED in the United States. Patients with a serious diagnosis identified in the ED were excluded. Patients were randomized, 1:1, to receive either usual care or a personalized syncope decision aid (SynDA) meant to facilitate SDM. Our primary outcome was feasibility, i.e., ability to enroll 50 patients in 24 months. Secondary outcomes included patient knowledge, involvement (measured with OPTION-5), rating of care, and clinical outcomes at 30 days post-ED visit. RESULTS: After screening 351 patients, we enrolled 50 participants with unexplained syncope from January 2017 to January 2019. The most common reason for exclusion was lack of clinical equipoise to justify SDM (n = 124). Patients in the SynDA arm tended to have greater patient involvement, as shown by higher OPTION-5 scores: 52/100 versus 27/100 (between-group difference = -25.4, 95% confidence interval = -13.5 to -37.3). Both groups had similar levels of clinical knowledge, ratings of care, and serious clinical outcomes at 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Among ED patients with unexplained syncope, a randomized controlled trial of a shared decision-making tool is feasible. Although this study was not powered to detect differences in clinical outcomes, it demonstrates feasibility, while providing key lessons and effect sizes that could inform the design of future SDM trials.

Behind the Scenes of Successful Research in Emergency Medicine: Nine Tips for Junior Investigators.

Education related to clinical research often focuses on methodology, statistics, ethics, and study design. While knowledge of these conventional skills is essential to the operationalization of research, many "soft" skills related to leadership, communication, and team management are critical to the successful conduct research in the real world. Conducting clinical research in the emergency department is generally a challenging endeavor. Based on our prior experience as clinical researchers and a narrative review of the published literature, we offer nine practical strategies to help junior investigators conduct research. To successfully execute a research study, investigators must know how to motivate their team, create a brand around their study, communicate effectively, maximize clinician and patient engagement, and celebrate victory, among other skills. These skills and strategies are often missing from the formal research education and in peer-reviewed manuscripts but are, in fact, invaluable to the successful development of junior investigators. Thus, we offer the "story behind the study" in an effort to contribute to research education with material that is not typically covered in formal curricula.

Prevalence of Intracranial Injury in Adult Patients With Blunt Head Trauma With and Without Anticoagulant or Antiplatelet Use.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We determine the prevalence of significant intracranial injury among adults with blunt head trauma who are receiving preinjury anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted from December 2007 to December 2015. Patients were enrolled in 3 emergency departments (EDs) in the United States. Adults with blunt head trauma who underwent neuroimaging in the ED were included. Use of preinjury aspirin, clopidogrel, and warfarin was recorded. Data on direct oral anticoagulants were not specifically recorded. The primary outcome was prevalence of significant intracranial injury on neuroimaging. The secondary outcome was receipt of neurosurgical intervention. RESULTS: Among 9,070 patients enrolled in this study, the median age was 53.8 years (interquartile range 34.7 to 74.3 years) and 60.7% were men. A total of 1,323 patients (14.6%) were receiving antiplatelet medications or warfarin, including 635 receiving aspirin alone, 109 clopidogrel alone, and 406 warfarin alone. Compared with that of patients without any coagulopathy, the relative risk of significant intracranial injury was 1.29 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88 to 1.87) for patients receiving aspirin alone, 0.75 (95% CI 0.24 to 2.30) for those receiving clopidogrel alone, and 1.88 (95% CI 1.28 to 2.75) for those receiving warfarin alone. The relative risk of significant intracranial injury was 2.88 (95% CI 1.53 to 5.42) for patients receiving aspirin and clopidogrel in combination. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving preinjury warfarin or a combination of aspirin and clopidogrel were at increased risk for significant intracranial injury, but not those receiving aspirin alone. Clinicians should have a low threshold for neuroimaging when evaluating patients receiving warfarin or a combination of aspirin and clopidogrel.

Risk Stratification of Older Adults Who Present to the Emergency Department With Syncope: The FAINT Score.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Older adults with syncope are commonly treated in the emergency department (ED). We seek to derive a novel risk-stratification tool to predict 30-day serious cardiac outcomes. METHODS: We performed a prospective, observational study of older adults (≥60 years) with unexplained syncope or near syncope who presented to 11 EDs in the United States. Patients with a serious diagnosis identified in the ED were excluded. We collected clinical and laboratory data on all patients. Our primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality or serious cardiac outcome. RESULTS: We enrolled 3,177 older adults with unexplained syncope or near syncope between April 2013 and September 2016. Mean age was 73 years (SD 9.0 years). The incidence of the primary outcome was 5.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.9% to 6.5%). Using Bayesian logistic regression, we derived the FAINT score: history of heart failure, history of cardiac arrhythmia, initial abnormal ECG result, elevated pro B-type natriuretic peptide, and elevated high-sensitivity troponin T. A FAINT score of 0 versus greater than or equal to 1 had sensitivity of 96.7% (95% CI 92.9% to 98.8%) and specificity 22.2% (95% CI 20.7% to 23.8%), respectively. The FAINT score tended to be more accurate than unstructured physician judgment: area under the curve 0.704 (95% CI 0.669 to 0.739) versus 0.630 (95% CI 0.589 to 0.670). CONCLUSION: Among older adults with syncope or near syncope of potential cardiac cause, a FAINT score of zero had a reasonably high sensitivity for excluding death and serious cardiac outcomes at 30 days. If externally validated, this tool could improve resource use for this common condition.

Does Shared Decision Making Actually Occur in the Emergency Department? Looking at It from the Patients' Perspective.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the frequency, content, and quality of shared decision making (SDM) in the emergency department (ED), from patients' perspectives. METHODS: Utilizing a cross-sectional, multisite approach, we administered an instrument, consisting of two validated SDM assessment tools-the CollaboRATE and the SDM-Q-9-and one newly developed tool to a sample of ED patients. Our primary outcome was the occurrence of SDM in the clinical encounter, as defined by participants giving "top-box" scores on the CollaboRATE measure, and the ability of patients to identify the topic of their SDM conversation. Secondary outcomes included the content of the SDM conversations, as judged by patients, and whether patients were able to complete each of the two validated scales included in the instrument. RESULTS: After exclusions, 285 participants from two sites completed the composite instrument. Just under half identified as female (47%) or as white (47%). Roughly half gave top-box scores (i.e., indicating optimal SDM) on the CollaboRATE scale (49%). Less than half of the participants were able to indicate a decision they were involved in (44%), although those who did gave high scores for such conversations (73/100 via the SDM-Q-9 tool). The most frequently identified decisions discussed were admission versus discharge (19%), medication options (17%), and options for follow-up care (15%). CONCLUSIONS: Fewer than half of ED patients surveyed reported they were involved in SDM. The most common decision for which SDM was used was around ED disposition (admission vs. discharge). When SDM was employed, patients generally rated the discussion highly.

Clinical Benefit of Hospitalization for Older Adults With Unexplained Syncope: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Many adults with syncope are hospitalized solely for observation and testing. We seek to determine whether hospitalization versus outpatient management for older adults with unexplained syncope is associated with a reduction in postdisposition serious adverse events at 30 days. METHODS: We performed a propensity score analysis using data from a prospective, observational study of older adults with unexplained syncope or near syncope who presented to 11 emergency departments (EDs) in the United States. We enrolled adults (≥60 years) who presented with syncope or near syncope. We excluded patients with a serious diagnosis identified in the ED. Clinical and laboratory data were collected on all patients. The primary outcome was rate of post-ED serious adverse events at 30 days. RESULTS: We enrolled 2,492 older adults with syncope and no serious ED diagnosis from April 2013 to September 2016. Mean age was 73 years (SD 8.9 years), and 51% were women. The incidence of serious adverse events within 30 days after the index visit was 7.4% for hospitalized patients and 3.19% for discharged patients, representing an unadjusted difference of 4.2% (95% confidence interval 2.38% to 6.02%). After propensity score matching on risk of hospitalization, there was no statistically significant difference in serious adverse events at 30 days between the hospitalized group (4.89%) and the discharged group (2.82%) (risk difference 2.07%; 95% confidence interval -0.24% to 4.38%). CONCLUSION: In our propensity-matched sample of older adults with unexplained syncope, for those with clinical characteristics similar to that of the discharged cohort, hospitalization was not associated with improvement in 30-day serious adverse event rates.

The Effect of Shared Decisionmaking on Patients' Likelihood of Filing a Complaint or Lawsuit: A Simulation Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Shared decisionmaking has been promoted as a method to increase the patient-centeredness of medical decisionmaking and decrease low-yield testing, but little is known about its medicolegal ramifications in the setting of an adverse outcome. We seek to determine whether the use of shared decisionmaking changes perceptions of fault and liability in the case of an adverse outcome. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled simulation experiment conducted by survey, using clinical vignettes featuring no shared decisionmaking, brief shared decisionmaking, or thorough shared decisionmaking. Participants were adult US citizens recruited through an online crowd-sourcing platform. Participants were randomized to vignettes portraying 1 of 3 levels of shared decisionmaking. All other information given was identical, including the final clinical decision and the adverse outcome. The primary outcome was reported likelihood of pursuing legal action. Secondary outcomes included perceptions of fault, quality of care, and trust in physician. RESULTS: We recruited 804 participants. Participants exposed to shared decisionmaking (brief and thorough) were 80% less likely to report a plan to contact a lawyer than those not exposed to shared decisionmaking (12% and 11% versus 41%; odds ratio 0.2; 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.31). Participants exposed to either level of shared decisionmaking reported higher trust, rated their physicians more highly, and were less likely to fault their physicians for the adverse outcome compared with those exposed to the no shared decisionmaking vignette. CONCLUSION: In the setting of an adverse outcome from a missed diagnosis, use of shared decisionmaking may affect patients' perceptions of fault and liability.

Predictors of Clinically Significant Echocardiography Findings in Older Adults with Syncope: A Secondary Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Syncope is a common reason for visiting the emergency department (ED) and is associated with significant healthcare resource utilization. OBJECTIVE: To develop a risk-stratification tool for clinically significant findings on echocardiography among older adults presenting to the ED with syncope or nearsyncope. DESIGN: Prospective, observational cohort study from April 2013 to September 2016. SETTING: Eleven EDs in the United States. PATIENTS: We enrolled adults (=60 years) who presented to the ED with syncope or near-syncope who underwent transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was a clinically significant finding on TTE. Clinical, electrocardiogram, and laboratory variables were also collected. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of significant findings on echocardiography. RESULTS: A total of 3,686 patients were enrolled. Of these, 995 (27%) received echocardiography, and 215 (22%) had a significant finding on echocardiography. Regression analysis identified five predictors of significant finding: (1) history of congestive heart failure, (2) history of coronary artery disease, (3) abnormal electrocardiogram, (4) high-sensitivity troponin-T >14 pg/mL, and 5) N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide >125 pg/mL. These five variables make up the ROMEO (Risk Of Major Echocardiography findings in Older adults with syncope) criteria. The sensitivity of a ROMEO score of zero for excluding significant findings on echocardiography was 99.5% (95% CI: 97.4%-99.9%) with a specificity of 15.4% (95% CI: 13.0%-18.1%). CONCLUSIONS: If validated, this risk-stratification tool could help clinicians determine which syncope patients are at very low risk of having clinically significant findings on echocardiography. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01802398.

Factors Associated With Patient Involvement in Emergency Care Decisions: A Secondary Analysis of the Chest Pain Choice Multicenter Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making in the emergency department (ED) can increase patient engagement for patients presenting with chest pain. However, little is known regarding which factors are associated with actual patient involvement in decision making or patients' desired involvement in emergency care decisions. We examined which factors were associated with patients' actual and desired involvement in decision making among ED chest pain patients. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial of a shared decision-making intervention in ED patients with low-risk chest pain. We evaluated the degree to which patients were involved in decision making using the OPTION-12 (observing patient involvement) scale and patients' reported desire for involvement in decision making using the Control Preferences Scale (CPS). We measured the associations of patient factors with OPTION-12 and CPS scores using multivariable regression. RESULTS: Of the 898 patients enrolled, mean (±SD) age was 51.5 (±11.4) years and 59% were female. Multivariable analysis revealed that only two factors were significantly associated with OPTION-12 scores: study site and use of the decision aid. OPTION-12 scores were 10.3 (standard error = 0.6) points higher for patients randomized to the decision aid compared to usual care (p < 0.001). Higher health literacy was associated with lower scores on the CPS, indicating greater desire for involvement (odds ratio = 0.91, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' reported desire for involvement in decision making was higher among those with higher health literacy. After study site and other potential confounding factors were adjusted for, only use of the decision aid was associated with observed patient involvement in decision making. As the science and practice of shared decision making in the ED moves toward implementation, high-fidelity integration of the decision aid into the flow of care will be necessary to realize desired outcomes.

Patient Preferences Regarding Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Findings From a Multisite Survey.

OBJECTIVES: As shared decision making (SDM) has received increased attention as a method to improve the patient-centeredness of emergency department (ED) care, we sought to determine patients' desired level of involvement in medical decisions and their perceptions of potential barriers and facilitators to SDM in the ED. METHODS: We surveyed a cross-sectional sample of adult ED patients at three academic medical centers across the United States. The survey included 32 items regarding patient involvement in medical decisions including a modified Control Preference Scale and questions about barriers and facilitators to SDM in the ED. Items were developed and refined based on prior literature and qualitative interviews with ED patients. Research assistants administered the survey in person. RESULTS: Of 797 patients approached, 661 (83%) agreed to participate. Participants were 52% female, 45% white, and 30% Hispanic. The majority of respondents (85%-92%, depending on decision type) expressed a desire for some degree of involvement in decision making in the ED, while 8% to 15% preferred to leave decision making to their physician alone. Ninety-eight percent wanted to be involved with decisions when "something serious is going on." The majority of patients (94%) indicated that self-efficacy was not a barrier to SDM in the ED. However, most patients (55%) reported a tendency to defer to the physician's decision making during an ED visit, with about half reporting they would wait for a physician to ask them to be involved. CONCLUSION: We found that the majority of ED patients in our large, diverse sample wanted to be involved in medical decisions, especially in the case of a "serious" medical problem, and felt that they had the ability to do so. Nevertheless, many patients were unlikely to actively seek involvement and defaulted to allowing the physician to make decisions during the ED visit. After fully explaining the consequences of a decision, clinicians should make an effort to explicitly ascertain patients' desired level of involvement in decision making.