Severity of diagnosis among patients with chest pain presenting to the emergency department after calling a nurse line.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A Nurse Line (NL) is a resource that is commonly used by patients and hospitals to assist in the triage of patient medical complaints. We sought to determine whether patients with chief complaint of chest pain who presented to the ED after calling a NL were different from patients who presented directly to the ED. The primary aim was to test for differences in the severity of the causes of chest pain between the two groups. METHODS: This was a retrospective case-control chart review study. Data collected included demographic data, comorbidities, ED orders, ED interventions, patient primary diagnosis and disposition. RESULTS: 350 patients were included in the analysis: 175 patients called the NL and 175 age/sex matched patients did not call the NL. The mean age was 58.3 (SD 16.4; range 19.1-93.3) and 53.7% of patients were female. Race was similar between the groups. Patients were more likely to go directly to the ED without calling a NL if they had comorbidities. Among the total cohort, 36 patients were deemed to have a serious diagnosis related to the pain; this did not differ between groups (16 NL, 20 non-NL; OR = 1.11 95%CI 0.55-2.23). There were no differences of ED work-up or hospital admission (50 NL, 67 non-NL; OR = 0.85 95%CI 0.51-1.42) between the groups. CONCLUSION: NL call was not associated with differences in severity of diagnosis, work-up, hospital admission or patient demographics. Patients who presented to the ED with chest pain without calling a NL had more comorbidities.

Provider-in-triage prediction of hospital admission after brief patient interaction.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine if emergency physician providers working in the triage area (PIT) of the ED could accurately predict the likelihood of admission for patients at the time of triage. Such predictions, if accurate, could decrease the time spent in the ED for patients who are admitted to the hospital by hastening downstream workflow. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study of PIT providers at a large urban hospital. Physicians were asked to predict the likelihood of admission and confidence of prediction for patients after evaluating them in triage. Measures of predictive accuracy were calculated, including sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operator characteristic (AUROC). RESULTS: 36 physicians (20 attendings, 16 residents) evaluated 340 patients and made predictions. The average patient age was 48 (range 18-94) and 52% were female. Seventy-three patients (21%) were admitted (5% observation, 85% general care/telemetry, 7% progressive care, 3% ICU). The sensitivity of determining admission for the entire cohort was 74%, the specificity was 84%, and the AUROC was 0.81. When physicians were at least 80% confident in their predictions, the predictions improved to sensitivity of 93%, specificity of 96%, and AUROC 0.95 (Graph 1). CONCLUSION: The accuracy of physician providers-in-triage of predicting hospital admission was very good when those predictions were made with higher degrees of confidence. These results indicate that while general predictions of admission are likely inadequate to guide downstream workflow, predictions in which the physician is confident could provide utility.