Compliance with the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians' asthma clinical practice guidelines at a tertiary care emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: Although evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) exist, emergency department (ED) asthma management remains highly variable. Our objective was to compare asthma management at a tertiary care ED with that advised by the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians' (CAEP) asthma CPG and current best practice. METHODS: This medical record study enrolled patients between the ages of 19 and 60 years with a previous diagnosis of asthma who were seen for an acute asthma exacerbation at the Vancouver General Hospital ED in 2008. Standard methodology guidelines for medical record review were followed, including explicitly defined criteria and determination of interrater reliability. Primary outcomes were the proportion of cases with the following: objective assessment of severity using peak expiratory flow (PEF), use of systemic corticosteroids (SCSs) in the ED and at discharge, prescription for any inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), and documentation of outpatient follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 204 patient encounters were enrolled. Kappa values for interrater assessment ranged from 0.93 to 1.00. Compliance with primary outcomes was as follows: measurement of PEF, 90% (95% CI 85-94); use of SCSs in the ED, 64% (95% CI 57-71); prescription of SCSs at discharge, 59% (95% CI 51-67); prescription of any ICS at discharge, 51% (95% CI 41-61); and documentation of outpatient follow-up, 78% (95% CI 71-84). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates an improvement in ED asthma care compared to previously published studies; however, discordance still exists between asthma management at a tertiary care ED and the CAEP asthma CPG and current best practice. Further research is warranted to understand the reasons for this finding.

Incidental vertebral fractures discovered with chest radiography in the emergency department: prevalence, recognition, and osteoporosis management in a cohort of elderly patients.

BACKGROUND: Vertebral fractures are common and usually an indication for osteoporosis treatment. However, screening is not recommended, and many fractures go undetected. Our objectives were to determine the utility of chest radiographs for detecting previously unrecognized vertebral fractures; document rates of recognition; and evaluate osteoporosis treatments. METHODS: In 2001, we conducted a cohort study in a random sample of 500 patients older than 60 years who presented to our emergency department and underwent chest radiography for any indication. The primary outcome was prevalence of moderate-to-severe vertebral fractures determined by independent radiograph review using validated semiquantitative techniques. Secondary outcomes were rates of fracture recognition according to official radiologists' reports and rates of osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment. We conducted multivariable regression analyses to determine correlates of study-defined and officially reported fractures. RESULTS: We excluded 36 patients with inadequate radiographs and 5 for other reasons. Mean age was 75.2 years; 47% were women; and 80% were white. The prevalence of moderate-to-severe vertebral fractures according to independent review was 72 (16%) of 459; 29 (40%) of these fractures were not recorded in the official radiologists' report (kappa = 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.75). A history of osteoporosis was the only independent correlate of having a vertebral fracture identified by independent review (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.18; 95% CI, 1.14-4.17) or by official report (adjusted OR, 4.97; 95% CI, 0.95-25.86). Of the 72 patients with fractures, only 18 (25%) had histories of osteoporosis or received osteoporosis medications. CONCLUSIONS: One in 6 elderly patients who underwent chest radiography in our emergency department had clinically important vertebral fractures. Nevertheless, only 43 (60%) of these fractures were reported, and only 25% of patients with fractures received a diagnosis of or treatment for osteoporosis.

Utilization of the emergency department after self-inflicted injury.

OBJECTIVES: To compare emergency department (ED) utilization by individuals who present with self-inflicted injuries with utilization by control populations. Individuals with self-inflicted injuries commonly present to the ED, yet little research has been conducted on this population in this setting. METHODS: Individuals who had an ED presentation in 1995-1996 for a self-inflicted injury were tracked prospectively for three to four years of follow-up. This group was matched by age and gender to two groups: individuals who presented with asthma and individuals who presented with other complaints. Data on return visits to the ED were collected from an administrative database. Groups were compared on rates of return visits. RESULTS: There were 478 individuals randomly selected for each group. Individuals in the self-inflicted injury group had higher rates of return visits to the ED over the follow-up period: 232.7 visits per 100 person-years for the self-inflicted injury group, compared with 117.6 for the asthma group, and 83.0 for the "other" group (p < 0.001). The self-inflicted injury group had higher rates for many types of diagnoses: self-inflicted injuries, mental disorders, substance abuse, unintentional injuries, assault, headache pain, and other complaints (all p < 0.001). Patients with more than three repeat visits per year were more common in the self-inflicted injury group (20.1%) than the asthma or "other" groups (9.2% and 5.6%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals who harm themselves are chronic users of the ED. The ED represents an opportune setting from which individuals can be directed to appropriate treatment programs.