Diagnosis of Patients with Acute Dizziness.

Using an algorithmic approach to acutely dizzy patients, physicians can often confidently make a specific diagnosis that leads to correct treatment and should reduce the misdiagnosis of cerebrovascular events. Emergency clinicians should try to become familiar with an approach that exploits timing and triggers as well as some basic "rules" of nystagmus. The gait should always be tested in all patients who might be discharged. Computed tomographic scans are unreliable to exclude posterior circulation stroke presenting as dizziness, and early MRI (within the first 72 hours) also misses 10% to 20% of these cases.

The utility of emergency department physical therapy and case management consultation in reducing hospital admissions.

BACKGROUND: A significant number of patients who present to the emergency department (ED) following a fall or with other injuries require evaluation by a physical therapist. Traditionally, once emergent conditions are excluded in the ED, these patients are admitted to the hospital for evaluation by a physical therapist to determine whether they should be transferred to a sub-acute rehabilitation facility, discharged, require services at home, or require further inpatient care. Case management is typically used in conjunction with a physical therapist to determine eligibility for recommended services and to aid in placement. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefit of using ED-based physical therapist and case management services in lieu of routine hospital admission. METHODS: Retrospective, observational study of consecutive patients presenting to an urban, tertiary care academic medical center ED between December 1, 2017, and November 30, 2018, who had a physical therapist consult placed in the ED. We additionally evaluated which of these patients were placed into ED observation for physical therapist consultation, how many required case management, and ED disposition: discharged home from the ED or ED observation with or without services, placed in a rehabilitation facility, or admitted to the hospital. RESULTS: During the 12-month study period, 1296 patients (2.4% of the total seen in the ED) were assessed by a physical therapist. The mean age was 75.5 ± 15.2 and 832 (64.2%) were female. Case management was involved in 91.8% of these cases. The final patient disposition was as follows: admission 24.3% (95% CI = 22.1-26.7%), home discharge with or without services 47.8% (95% CI = 45.1-50.5%), rehabilitation (rehab) setting 27.9% (95% CI = 25.6%-30.4). The median (interquartile range) time in observation was 13.1 (6.0-20.3), 9.9 (1.8-15.8), and 18.4 (14.1-24.8) hours for patients admitted, discharged home, or sent to rehabilitation (P < 0.001). Among the 979 patients discharged home or sent to rehabilitation, 17 (1.7%) returned to the ED within 72 hours and were ultimately admitted. CONCLUSION: Given that the standard of care would otherwise be an admission to the hospital for 1 day or more for all patients requiring physical therapist consultation, an ED-based physical therapy and case management system serves as a viable method to substantially decrease hospital admissions and potentially reduce resource use, length of hospital stay, and cost both to patients and the health care system.

Using a rule-based system to define error in the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: The evaluation of peer-reviewed cases for error is key to quality assurance (QA) in emergency medicine, but defining error to ensure reviewer agreement and reproducibility remains elusive. The objective of this study was to create a consensus-based set of rules to systematically identify medical errors. METHODS: This is a prospective, observational study of all cases presented for peer review at an urban, tertiary care, academic medical center emergency department (ED) quality assurance (QA) committee between October 13, 2015, and September 14, 2016. Our hospital uses an electronic system enabling staff to self-identify QA issues for subsequent review. In addition, physician or patient complaints, 72-hour returns with admission, death within 24 hours, floor transfers to ICU < 24 hours, and morbidity and mortality conference cases are automatic triggers for review. Trained reviewers not involved in the patient's care use a structured 8-point Likert scale to assess for error and preventable or non-preventable adverse events. Cases where reviewers perceived a need for additional treatment, or that caused patient harm, are referred to a 20-member committee of emergency department leadership, attendings, residents, and nurses for consensus review. For this study, "rules" were proposed by the reviewers identifying the error and validated by consensus during each meeting. The committee then decided if a rule had been broken (error) or not broken (judgment call). If an error could not be phrased in terms of a rule broken, then it would not be considered an error. The rules were then evaluated by 2 reviewers and organized by theme into categories to determine common errors in emergency medicine. RESULTS: We identified 108 episodes of rules broken in 103 cases within a database of 920 QA reviewed cases. In cases where a rule was broken and therefore an error was scored, the following 5 major themes emerged: (1) not acquiring necessary information (eg, not completing a relevant physical exam), N = 33 (31%); (2) not acting on data that were acquired (eg, abnormal vital signs or labs), N = 25 (23%); (3) knowledge gaps by clinicians (eg, not knowing to reduce a hernia), N = 16 (15%); (4) communication gaps (eg, discharge instructions), N = 17 (16%); and (5) systems issues (eg, improper patient registration), N = 17 (16%). CONCLUSION: The development of consensus-based rules may result in a more standardized and practical definition of error in emergency medicine to be used as a QA tool and a basis for research. The most common type of rule broken was not acquiring necessary information. A rule-based definition of medical error in emergency medicine may identify key areas for risk reduction strategies, help standardize medical QA, and improve patient care and physician education.

The Ethics of Error in Medicine.

The practice of medicine forces medical practitioners to make difficult and challenging choices on a daily basis. On the one hand we are obligated to cure with every resource available, while on the other hand we put the patient at risk because our treatments are flawed. To understand the ethics of error in medicine, its moral value, and the effects, error must first be defined. However, definition of error remains elusive, and its incidence has been extraordinarily difficult to quantify. Yet, a health care system that acknowledges error as a consequence of normative ethical practice must create systems to minimize error. Error reduction, in turn, should attempt to decrease patient harm and improve the entire health care system. We discuss a number of ethical and moral considerations that arise from practicing medicine despite anticipated error.

Avoiding Misdiagnosis in Patients With Posterior Circulation Ischemia: A Narrative Review.

Posterior circulation strokes represent 20% of all acute ischemic strokes. Posterior circulation stroke patients are misdiagnosed twice as often compared to those with anterior events. Misdiagnosed patients likely have worse outcomes than correctly diagnosed patients because they are at risk for complications of the initial stroke as well as recurrent events due to lack of secondary stroke prevention and failure to treat the underlying vascular pathology. Understanding important anatomic variants, the clinical presentations, relevant physical examination findings, and the limitations of acute brain imaging may help reduce misdiagnosis. We present a symptom-based review of posterior circulation ischemia focusing on the subtler presentations with a brief discussion of basilar stroke, both of which can be missed by the emergency physician. Strategies to avoid misdiagnosis include establishing an abrupt onset of symptoms, awareness of the nonspecific presentations, consideration of basilar stroke in altered patients and using a modern approach to diagnosis of the acutely dizzy patient.

Acute Dizziness.

Dizziness is a common chief complaint with an extensive differential diagnosis that includes both benign and serious conditions. Physicians must distinguish the majority of patients who suffer from self-limiting conditions from those with serious illnesses that require acute treatment. The preferred approach to the diagnosis of an acutely dizzy patient emphasizes different aspects of the history to guide a focused physical examination, with the goal of differentiating benign peripheral vestibular conditions from dangerous posterior circulation strokes. Currently, misdiagnoses are frequent and diagnostic testing costs are high. This partly relates to use of an outdated diagnostic paradigm. This commonly used traditional approach relies on dizziness "symptom quality" or "type" (vertigo, presyncope, disequilibrium) to guide inquiry. It does not distinguish benign from dangerous causes and is inconsistent with current best evidence. A better approach categorizes patients into three groups based on timing and triggers. Each category has its own differential diagnosis and targeted bedside approach: (1) acute vestibular syndrome, where bedside physical examination differentiates vestibular neuritis from stroke; (2) spontaneous episodic vestibular syndrome, where associated symptoms help differentiate vestibular migraine from transient ischemic attack; and (3) triggered episodic vestibular syndrome, where the Dix-Hallpike and supine roll test help differentiate benign paroxysmal positional vertigo from posterior fossa structural lesions. The "timing and triggers" diagnostic approach for the acutely dizzy derives from current best evidence and offers the potential to reduce misdiagnosis while simultaneously decreasing diagnostic test overuse, unnecessary hospitalization, and incorrect treatments.

Comparison of Emergency Medicine Malpractice Cases Involving Residents to Nonresident Cases.

BACKGROUND: Data are lacking on how emergency medicine (EM) malpractice cases with resident involvement differs from cases that do not name a resident. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to compare malpractice case characteristics in cases where a resident is involved (resident case) to cases that do not involve a resident (nonresident case) and to determine factors that contribute to malpractice cases utilizing EM as a model for malpractice claims across other medical specialties. METHODS: We used data from the Controlled Risk Insurance Company (CRICO) Strategies' division Comparative Benchmarking System (CBS) to analyze open and closed EM cases asserted from 2009 to 2013. The CBS database is a national repository that contains professional liability data on > 400 hospitals and > 165,000 physicians, representing over 30% of all malpractice cases in the United States (>350,000 claims). We compared cases naming residents (either alone or in combination with an attending) to those that did not involve a resident (nonresident cohort). We reported the case statistics, allegation categories, severity scores, procedural data, final diagnoses, and contributing factors. Fisher's exact test or t-test was used for comparisons (alpha set at 0.05). RESULTS: A total of 845 EM cases were identified of which 732 (87%) did not name a resident (nonresident cases), while 113 (13%) included a resident (resident cases). There were higher total incurred losses for nonresident cases. The most frequent allegation categories in both cohorts were "failure or delay in diagnosis/misdiagnosis" and "medical treatment" (nonsurgical procedures or treatment regimens, i.e., central line placement). Allegation categories of safety and security, patient monitoring, hospital policy and procedure, and breach of confidentiality were found in the nonresident cases. Resident cases incurred lower payments on average ($51,163 vs. $156,212 per case). Sixty-six percent (75) of resident versus 57% (415) of nonresident cases were high-severity claims (permanent, grave disability or death; p = 0.05). Procedures involved were identified in 32% (36) of resident and 26% (188) of nonresident cases (p = 0.17). The final diagnoses in resident cases were more often cardiac related (19% [21] vs. 10% [71], p < 0.005) whereas nonresident cases had more orthopedic-related final diagnoses (10% [72] vs. 3% [3], p < 0.01). The most common contributing factors in resident and nonresident cases were clinical judgment (71% vs. 76% [p = 0.24]), communication (27% vs. 30% [p = 0.46]), and documentation (20% vs. 21% [p = 0.95]). Technical skills contributed to 20% (22) of resident cases versus 13% (96) of nonresident cases (p = 0.07) but those procedures involving vascular access (2.7% [3] vs 0.1% [1]) and spinal procedures (3.5% [4] vs. 1.1% [8]) were more prevalent in resident cases (p < 0.05 for each). CONCLUSIONS: There are higher total incurred losses in nonresident cases. There are higher severity scores in resident cases. The overall case profiles, including allegation categories, final diagnoses, and contributing factors between resident and nonresident cases are similar. Cases involving residents are more likely to involve certain technical skills, specifically vascular access and spinal procedures, which may have important implications regarding supervision. Clinical judgment, communication, and documentation are the most prevalent contributing factors in all cases and should be targets for risk reduction strategies.

A New Diagnostic Approach to the Adult Patient with Acute Dizziness.

BACKGROUND: Dizziness, a common chief complaint, has an extensive differential diagnosis that includes both benign and serious conditions. Emergency physicians must distinguish the majority of patients with self-limiting conditions from those with serious illnesses that require acute treatment. OBJECTIVE OF THE REVIEW: This article presents a new approach to diagnosis of the acutely dizzy patient that emphasizes different aspects of the history to guide a focused physical examination with the goal of differentiating benign peripheral vestibular conditions from dangerous posterior circulation strokes in the emergency department. DISCUSSION: Currently, misdiagnoses are frequent and diagnostic testing costs are high. This relates in part to use of an outdated, prevalent, diagnostic paradigm. The traditional approach, which relies on dizziness symptom quality or type (i.e., vertigo, presyncope, or disequilibrium) to guide inquiry, does not distinguish benign from dangerous causes, and is inconsistent with current best evidence. A new approach divides patients into three key categories using timing and triggers, guiding a differential diagnosis and targeted bedside examination protocol: 1) acute vestibular syndrome, where bedside physical examination differentiates vestibular neuritis from stroke; 2) spontaneous episodic vestibular syndrome, where associated symptoms help differentiate vestibular migraine from transient ischemic attack; and 3) triggered episodic vestibular syndrome, where the Dix-Hallpike and supine roll test help differentiate benign paroxysmal positional vertigo from posterior fossa structural lesions. CONCLUSIONS: The timing and triggers diagnostic approach for the acutely dizzy patient derives from current best evidence and offers the potential to reduce misdiagnosis while simultaneously decreases diagnostic test overuse, unnecessary hospitalization, and incorrect treatments.

Use of Physician Concerns and Patient Complaints as Quality Assurance Markers in Emergency Medicine.

INTRODUCTION: The value of using patient- and physician-identified quality assurance (QA) issues in emergency medicine remains poorly characterized as a marker for emergency department (ED) QA. The objective of this study was to determine whether evaluation of patient and physician concerns is useful for identifying medical errors resulting in either an adverse event or a near-miss event. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, observational cohort study of consecutive patients presenting between January 2008 and December 2014 to an urban, tertiary care academic medical center ED with an electronic error reporting system that allows physicians to identify QA issues for review. In our system, both patient and physician concerns are reviewed by physician evaluators not involved with the patients' care to determine if a QA issue exists. If a potential QA issue is present, it is referred to a 20-member QA committee of emergency physicians and nurses who make a final determination as to whether or not an error or adverse event occurred. RESULTS: We identified 570 concerns within a database of 383,419 ED presentations, of which 33 were patient-generated and 537 were physician-generated. Out of the 570 reports, a preventable adverse event was detected in 3.0% of cases (95% CI = [1.52-4.28]). Further analysis revealed that 9.1% (95% CI = [2-24]) of patient complaints correlated to preventable errors leading to an adverse event. In contrast, 2.6% (95% CI = [2-4]) of QA concerns reported by a physician alone were found to be due to preventable medical errors leading to an adverse event (p=0.069). Near-miss events (errors without adverse outcome) trended towards more accurate reporting by physicians, with medical error found in 12.1% of reported cases (95% CI = [10-15]) versus 9.1% of those reported by patients (95% CI = [2-24] p=0.079). Adverse events in general that were not deemed to be due to preventable medical error were found in 12.1% of patient complaints (95% CI = [3-28]) and in 5.8% of physician QA concerns (95% CI = [4-8]). CONCLUSION: Screening and systemized evaluation of ED patient and physician complaints may be an underutilized QA tool. Patient complaints demonstrated a trend to identify medical errors that result in preventable adverse events, while physician QA concerns may be more likely to uncover a near miss.