Prospective Validation and Refinement of a Decision Rule to Obtain Chest X-ray in Patients With Nontraumatic Chest Pain in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to prospectively validate and refine previously published criteria to determine the potential utility of chest x-ray (CXR) in the evaluation and management of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with nontraumatic chest pain (CP). METHODS: A prospective observational study was performed of patients presenting to three EDs in the United States with a chief complaint of nontraumatic CP. Previously defined high-risk history and examination elements were combined into a refined decision rule and these elements were recorded for each patient by the ED physician. CXR results were reviewed and analyzed to determine the presence of clinically significant findings including pneumonia, pleural effusion, pneumothorax, congestive heart failure, or the presence of a new mass. Odds ratios for each history and examination element were analyzed as well as sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value (NPV) of the rule overall. RESULTS: A total of 1,111 patients were enrolled and 1,089 CXRs were analyzed. There were 70 (6.4%) patients with clinically relevant findings on CXR. The refined decision rule had a sensitivity of 92.9% (confidence interval [CI] = 83.4%-97.3%) and specificity of 30.4% (CI = 27.6%-33.4%) to predict clinically relevant findings on CXR, with a NPV of 98.4% (CI = 96.1%-99.4%). Five CXRs with clinically significant findings would have been missed by application of the refined rule (three pneumonias and two pleural effusions). Applying these criteria as a CXR decision rule to this population would have reduced CXR utilization by 28.9%. CONCLUSIONS: This study validates previous research suggesting a low clinical yield for CXR in the setting of nontraumatic CP in the ED. This refined clinical decision rule has a favorable sensitivity and NPV in a patient population with low incidence of disease. Further validation is needed prior to use in practice.

How reliable are patient-completed medication reconciliation forms compared with pharmacy lists?

OBJECTIVES: Medication reconciliation is a Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations requirement to reduce medication errors. This study evaluated the reliability of patient-completed medication reconciliation forms (MRs) compared with pharmacy-generated lists and determined if there was a difference in concordance when patients completed the forms from memory compared with when they brought a separate list or pill bottles. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients with completed MRs. Research assistants contacted the patient's pharmacy to determine medications filled in the prior 3 months, which was compared with the MR. Discrepancies and the method by which the patient completed the MR (memory, list, or pill bottles) were recorded. RESULTS: Three hundred fifteen patients were enrolled. Thirty-three percent made errors of omission (reported by pharmacy, but not on MR), 12.7% made errors of addition (reported on MR, but not by pharmacy), 18.1% made both types of errors, and 36.3% made no errors. Patients with errors were on 5.6 medications compared with 3.6 medications for those without errors (P < .0001). Those completing the MR from a list made 2.3 errors compared with 1.2 for those completing from memory and 1.8 for those completing from their pill bottles (P < .001). Of 390 medications omitted from patient lists, 16% were cardiac medications, 13% were neuropsychiatric agents, and 9.5% were narcotics. CONCLUSIONS: Thirty-six percent of patients were able to provide a medication list that matched their pharmacy-prescribed drugs. More errors were noted from patients taking more medications and from those completing their MR from a separate list.

Evaluating educational interventions in emergency medicine.

This article presents the proceedings of the 2012 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference breakout group charged with identifying areas necessary for future research regarding effectiveness of educational interventions for teaching emergency medicine (EM) knowledge, skills, and attitudes outside of the clinical setting. The objective was to summarize both medical and nonmedical education literature and report the consensus formation methods and results. The authors present final statements to guide future research aimed at evaluating the best methods for understanding and developing successful EM curricula using all types of educational interventions.