Emergency medical services transport of patients with headache: mode of arrival may indicate serious etiology.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether mode of arrival is associated with seriousness of etiology and use of diagnostic testing in patients treated in the emergency department for headache. METHODS: This observational, retrospective study was conducted by consecutive review of the records of patients presenting to the emergency department with a chief complaint of headache from December 1994 through May 1995. Patients with altered mental status or seizures were excluded. Mode of arrival was classified as either by EMS or other (e.g., private vehicle). Patients with a final diagnosis of meningitis, intracranial hemorrhage, or central nervous system tumor were classified as having serious causes, whereas those with headache due to migraine, tension headache, or headache that was otherwise unspecified were classified as nonserious. The use of diagnostic studies, such as lumbar puncture or CT scan, and their results, was recorded. Patients were included in the category of patients having serious intracranial pathology even if the diagnosis was delayed. Statistical analysis was performed using the Yates-corrected chi-square test, and by determining odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: For 967 patients presenting with a chief complaint of headache, 837 charts were included in the analysis. A total of 102 patients arrived by EMS, and 735 arrived by other means. Patients arriving by EMS had a higher rate of serious cause of headache than did those arriving by other means (OR = 18.5, p < 0.0001). EMS patients tended to undergo additional diagnostic testing (OR = 4.4, p < 0.0001), and those tests were more likely to be abnormal than for those arriving by other means (OR = 9.4, p < 0.0001). Males had a somewhat higher rate of serious diagnosis (OR = 2.6, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this EMS system, patients with headache who arrive by EMS are more likely to have serious causes. Mode of arrival may be of use to the clinician in assessing risk of serious illness among patients with headache. Whether this observation represents an element of self-triage or a combination of other factors remains to be determined.

Disagreement among health care professionals about the urgent care needs of emergency department patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess agreement among health professionals with regard to the need for urgent care among emergency department patients. METHODS: We conducted a chart review of 266 ED patients in an urban teaching hospital. Eight health professionals (four emergency nurses, two emergency physicians, two family physicians) used identical criteria to retrospectively rate urgency. Agreement was measured for all reviewers, as well as among health professionals of the same specialty. Agreement was also measured between one ED nurse's retrospective assessment and the prospective assessments of the triage nurses who had seen the patients on presentation. RESULTS: The percentage of patients rated as needing urgent care by the retrospective reviewers ranged from 11% to 63%. Agreement among the retrospective reviewers was fair (kappa = .38; 95% confidence interval, .30 to .46) and was no better among reviewers of the same specialty. We found only slight agreement between the nurse reviewer's retrospective assessment and the triage nurses' prospective assessments (kappa = 19; 95% confidence interval, .07 to .31). CONCLUSION: Even when using the same criteria, health professionals frequently disagree about the urgency of care in ED patients. When retrospective reviewers disagree with a prospective assessment of urgency, the potential exists for denial of payment or even lawsuits. Because the subjectivity of urgency definitions may increase disagreement, the development of more objective and uniform definitions may help improve agreement.

The rate of clinically significant plain radiograph misinterpretation by faculty in an emergency medicine residency program.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the rate of clinically significant discrepancies between radiograph interpretations by attending radiologists and emergency medicine (EM) faculty in 2 academic EDs, using a unique scoring system. METHODS: A retrospective comparison of radiographic agreement between EM and radiology faculty members was performed. All plain films initially interpreted by EM faculty or by EM residents with immediate reinterpretation by EM faculty were subsequently reviewed by attending radiologists. All discrepancies between these readings were reported to the ED on the following day for review by an EM faculty member (usually different from the initial EM faculty reader) who determined the need for treatment or follow-up changes. A secondary chart review by a quality assurance faculty member determined whether radiographic findings not noted on the x-ray log were present on the ED record All discrepancies from February to June 1994 were reviewed. A severity score was assigned based on the following criteria. Q-0: There was no change in treatment or follow-up; or the initial interpretation by EM faculty was validated by repeat or additional views. Q-1: Discrepancy is minor. Q-2: Discrepancy is significant, with potential for injury or bad outcome. Q-3: Discrepancy is significant, with actual injury or bad outcome. RESULTS: Of 14,046 radiographic studies eligible for enrollment, there were 134 discrepancies (0.95%). Only 28 cases (0.2%) were found to be clinically significant. Of these, 25 were scored Q-1, 3 were scored Q-2, and 0 were scored Q-3. These clinically significant discrepancy rates were highest for the finger, skull, elbow, hand, and lumbar spine. CONCLUSION: Emergency medicine faculty provide highly accurate rates of plain radiograph interpretation, particularly when adjusted for clinical significance and actual impact on patient care.

Effect of continuous quality improvement methods on reducing triage to thrombolytic interval for acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the timeliness of thrombolytic therapy in the ED for selected patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) following continuous quality improvement (CQI) interventions. METHODS: A retrospective, historical comparison study was performed of triage-to-thrombolytic time intervals for AMI patients using chart review for data collection. Patients treated after implementation of the CQI process vs a historical control group were compared. The patients with AMI who had received thrombolytics during the one-year period prior to the CQI interventions and who had documentation of time intervals served as the control group. The patients treated during a four-month period, beginning about one and a half years following introduction of the CQI interventions, served as the intervention group. Interventions included: a triage protocol, CQI review, and staff feedback. RESULTS: The mean triage-to-thrombolytic interval was longer for the control group (72 +/- 25 vs 40.0 +/- 22 min; p < 0.0001). The mean triage-to-ECG interval also was longer for the control group (16.5 +/- 8.9 vs 8.5 +/- 7.5 min; p < 0.0001). Most (79%) of the study group received thrombolytic therapy within 60 minutes, and 39% within 30 minutes, whereas 39% of the control group received thrombolytic therapy within 60 minutes, and 3% within 30 minutes. CONCLUSION: The implementation of CQI techniques, including 100% chart review, intensive systems analysis, and staff feedback, had a positive effect on the timeliness of thrombolytic therapy for the ED patients who had AMI. As a result, most (79%) of the patients received therapy within the 60-minute time window recommended currently by the American Heart Association.

Bolus administration of 5 mg epinephrine as a treatment of last resort for cardiac arrest.

There is some evidence that the dose of epinephrine currently recommended for resuscitation is low. This study examines the effect of bolus administration of 5 mg of epinephrine when given as an agent of last resort for cardiac arrest. The experimental design called for the administration of high-dose epinephrine at the point where resuscitative efforts would have ordinarily been stopped. Resuscitation was then continued for a minimum of five minutes so that any changes in rhythm or return of spontaneous circulation could be noted. Eighty-five consecutive patients undergoing resuscitation in our Emergency Department were enrolled in this study. Twenty-eight (33 percent) exhibited a change in cardiac rhythm. Of these 28 patients, seven (8 percent) developed pulses. Of these seven patients, four expired in the Emergency Department, one survived to admission but expired two days later, and two patients survived to discharge. We conclude that bolus administration of 5 mg of epinephrine may be useful in treating cardiac arrest refractory to conventional therapy.