A Prospective Evaluation of Clinical HEART Score Agreement, Accuracy, and Adherence in Emergency Department Chest Pain Patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The HEART score is a risk stratification aid that may safely reduce chest pain admissions for emergency department patients. However, differences in interpretation of subjective components potentially alters the performance of the score. We compared agreement between HEART scores determined during clinical practice with research-generated scores and estimated their accuracy in predicting 30-day major adverse cardiac events. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled adult ED patients with symptoms concerning for acute coronary syndrome at a single tertiary center. ED clinicians submitted their clinical HEART scores during the patient encounter. Researchers then independently interviewed patients to generate a research HEART score. Patients were followed by phone and chart review for major adverse cardiac events. Weighted kappa; unweighted Cohen's kappa; prevalence-adjusted, bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK); and test probabilities were calculated. RESULTS: From November 2016 to June 2019, 336 patients were enrolled, 261 (77.7%) were admitted, and 30 (8.9%) had major adverse cardiac events. Dichotomized HEART score agreement was 78% (kappa 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 0.58; PABAK 0.57, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.65) with the lowest agreement in the history (72%; WK 0.14, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.22) and electrocardiogram (85%; WK 0.4, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.49) components. Compared with researchers, clinicians had 100% sensitivity (95% CI 88.4% to 100%) (versus 86.7%, 95% CI 69.3% to 96.2%) and 27.8% specificity (95% CI 22.8% to 33.2%) (versus 34.6%, 95% CI 29.3% to 40.3%) for major adverse cardiac events. Four participants with low research HEART scores had major adverse cardiac events. CONCLUSION: ED clinicians had only moderate agreement with research HEART scores. Combined with uncertainties regarding accuracy in predicting major adverse cardiac events, we urge caution in the widespread use of the HEART score as the sole determinant of ED disposition.

A prospective analysis of time to screen protocol ECGs in adult Emergency Department triage patients.

BACKGROUND: Early identification of ST elevation MI (STEMI) in emergency departments (ED) via electrocardiogram (ECG) expedites intervention. While screening of all ED chest pain ECGs should be obtained within 10 minutes per the American Heart Association, 40% of all ECGs are software-analyzed as "Normal" or "Otherwise Normal." However, the reliability of this analysis and the time for confirmation read are uncertain. This study investigates the time necessary for Patient Care Technicians (PCTs) to deliver ECGs to ED attendings to confirm automated interpretation. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted at a single academic ED. All patients ≥18 years who had a triage ECG were included. ECGs were obtained within 10 min of arrival, time-stamped, delivered for ED attending review and time-stamped upon PCT return to triage. Data were entered into REDCap and analyzed using StatPlus. RESULTS: During the 4-month study, 1768 ECGs were collected. Distribution of automated readings was: "Normal ECG" 33.7%; "Otherwise Normal ECG" 11.2%; and "borderline/abnormal" 55.1%. The median time necessary for PCTs to confirm a screening ECG was 2.8 min (IQR 2,4) with attending physicians interrupted an average of 14.6 times per day. CONCLUSION: Screening of triage ECGs is time-intensive and compounds the frequency of physician interruptions. Although findings are not generalizable, the impact of these interruptions on patient care and safety is paramount and universal. Future directions include validating the reliability of "Normal" and "Otherwise Normal" ECG automated readings to obviate the need to interrupt ED physician for expedited screening confirmation.

Integration of aeromedicine in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

There is limited guidance on the use of helicopter medical personnel to facilitate care of critically ill COVID-19 patients. This manuscript describes the emergence of this novel virus, its mode of transmission, and the potential impacts on patient care in the unique environment of rotor wing aircraft. It details the development of clinical and operational guidelines for flight crew members. This allows other out-of-hospital clinicians to utilize our framework to augment or supplement their own for the current response effort to COVID-19. It further serves as a road map for future response to the care of high consequence infectious disease patients.

The Effect of Shared Decisionmaking on Patients' Likelihood of Filing a Complaint or Lawsuit: A Simulation Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Shared decisionmaking has been promoted as a method to increase the patient-centeredness of medical decisionmaking and decrease low-yield testing, but little is known about its medicolegal ramifications in the setting of an adverse outcome. We seek to determine whether the use of shared decisionmaking changes perceptions of fault and liability in the case of an adverse outcome. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled simulation experiment conducted by survey, using clinical vignettes featuring no shared decisionmaking, brief shared decisionmaking, or thorough shared decisionmaking. Participants were adult US citizens recruited through an online crowd-sourcing platform. Participants were randomized to vignettes portraying 1 of 3 levels of shared decisionmaking. All other information given was identical, including the final clinical decision and the adverse outcome. The primary outcome was reported likelihood of pursuing legal action. Secondary outcomes included perceptions of fault, quality of care, and trust in physician. RESULTS: We recruited 804 participants. Participants exposed to shared decisionmaking (brief and thorough) were 80% less likely to report a plan to contact a lawyer than those not exposed to shared decisionmaking (12% and 11% versus 41%; odds ratio 0.2; 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.31). Participants exposed to either level of shared decisionmaking reported higher trust, rated their physicians more highly, and were less likely to fault their physicians for the adverse outcome compared with those exposed to the no shared decisionmaking vignette. CONCLUSION: In the setting of an adverse outcome from a missed diagnosis, use of shared decisionmaking may affect patients' perceptions of fault and liability.