Utilization and Safety of a Pulmonary Embolism Treatment Protocol in an Emergency Department Observation Unit.

UNLABELLED: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common disease in emergency medicine and treatment approaches vary greatly. Emergency department observation units (EDOUs) have provided the opportunity to complete a PE workup, initiate treatment, and arrange appropriate follow-up for low-risk patients. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the utilization and safety of a treatment protocol for low-risk PE in an EDOU. METHODS: A prospective evaluation was performed in our EDOU for the treatment of low-risk PE between December 1, 2010 and May 31, 2012. The PE treatment protocol included telemetry monitoring, initiation of anticoagulation, performance of an echocardiogram, bilateral lower extremity duplex ultrasound, and consultation by the hospital's thrombosis service to arrange outpatient follow-up. The primary outcome measure was inpatient admission and any complications during the EDOU stay or during a 30-day follow-up period. RESULTS: Twelve patients were assigned to the EDOU for the PE treatment protocol during the 18-month study period. Six patients (50%) were admitted to an inpatient unit following the EDOU stay. Reasons for inpatient admission included hypoxia/worsening dyspnea (2), right ventricular strain on echocardiogram (1), large clot burden on duplex ultrasound (1), and lack of availability of testing/thrombosis service consultation during the EDOU stay (2). There were no adverse events in the EDOU. All patients reported compliance with outpatient follow-up, and none of the patients reported hospitalization or adverse events during the 30-day follow-up period. Utilization of the PE treatment protocol in our EDOU was surprisingly low (<1 patient/month), possibly because of provider awareness of the protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Although the overall inpatient admission rate from the EDOU was high, some of these cases related to logistical issues rather than medical concerns or complications. Further evaluation of an EDOU PE protocol may continue to demonstrate the safety and efficiency of this approach when compared with inpatient admission.

Evaluating age in the field triage of injured persons.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We evaluate trauma undertriage by age group, the association between age and serious injury after accounting for other field triage criteria and confounders, and the potential effect of a mandatory age triage criterion for field triage. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of injured children and adults transported by 48 emergency medical services (EMS) agencies to 105 hospitals in 6 regions of the western United States from 2006 through 2008. We used probabilistic linkage to match EMS records to hospital records, including trauma registries, state discharge databases, and emergency department databases. The primary outcome measure was serious injury, as measured by an Injury Severity Score greater than or equal to 16. We assessed undertriage (Injury Severity Score ≥16 and triage-negative or transport to a nontrauma center) by age decile and used multivariable logistic regression models to estimate the association (linear and nonlinear) between age and Injury Severity Score greater than or equal to 16, adjusted for important confounders. We also evaluated the potential influence of age on triage efficiency and trauma center volume. RESULTS: Injured patients (260,027) were evaluated and transported by EMS during the 3-year study period. Undertriage increased for patients older than 60 years, reaching approximately 60% for those older than 90 years. There was a strong nonlinear association between age and Injury Severity Score greater than or equal to 16. For patients not meeting other triage criteria, the probability of serious injury was most notable after 60 years. A mandatory age triage criterion would have decreased undertriage at the expense of overtriage, with 1 patient with Injury Severity Score greater than or equal to 16 identified for every 60 to 65 additional patients transported to major trauma centers. CONCLUSION: Trauma undertriage increases in patients older than 60 years. Although the probability of serious injury increases among triage-negative patients with increasing age, the use of a mandatory age triage criterion appears inefficient for improving field triage.

Characteristics of the first two years of applicants to a new emergency medicine residency program.

BACKGROUND: To the best of our knowledge, no study has compared the effect of using the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) on applicant pool characteristics for a new emergency medicine (EM) residency program. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare applicants in an EM residency program's first year, in which the ERAS is not typically used, to applicants in year 2 (using ERAS). METHODS: We reviewed the applications to the new University of Utah EM residency program for the entering classes of 2005 (year 1) and 2006 (year 2). RESULTS: In total, 130 and 458 prospective residents applied during year 1 and year 2, respectively. Applicants using and not using ERAS were similar in average Step 1 score (211.8 vs. 212.4, respectively; p = 0.791), previously failed Step 1 or Step 2 attempt (12.1% vs. 11.0%, respectively; p = 0.729), previous failure to match in a residency program (8.6% vs. 4.6%, respectively; p = 0.083), previous residency training (18.8% vs. 14.9%, respectively; p = 0.288), and the percent who had completed an EM clerkship (95.3% vs. 93.0%, respectively; p = 0.342). Applicants not using ERAS were more likely to have been remediated in medical school (13.2% vs. 4.2%; p < 0.001) and to have a Standardized Letter of Recommendation (SLOR) (87% vs. 78%; p = 0.024). Applicants using ERAS were more likely to have a SLOR match estimate of "very competitive" (38.2% vs. 54.1%; p = 0.004). Applicants were similar in having attended a "top tier" medical school (44.5% vs. 41.3%, p = 0.508). CONCLUSION: Despite significantly fewer applicants, those applying without the use of ERAS to a new EM residency program were generally comparable to the applicant pool that did permit the use of ERAS. The larger number of applicants the second year likely reflects the use of ERAS.

Treatment of low-risk pulmonary embolism patients in a chest pain unit.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have proposed the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) as a risk stratification tool for discharge of low-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) patients from the emergency department (ED) and treatment as outpatients, but this has not become accepted standard of care in the United States. Chest pain units (CPUs) may serve as ideal locations for the treatment and risk-stratification of low-risk PE patients, thus avoiding lengthy inpatient stays while assuring patients are appropriate for outpatient therapy for PE. We sought to characterize the number of patients at our institution who may be eligible for a short stay in our CPU and then established a protocol for the treatment of low-risk patients in the CPU. METHODS: We identified all patients admitted to the University of Utah Medical Center from the ED with a diagnosis of PE over the 6-year period between 2002 and 2007. We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records to identify clinical variables to calculate a PESI score for each patient. Patients who were considered to be low-risk, on the basis of PESI score (class I and II), were considered eligible for treatment in the CPU, and, on the basis of this, we estimated numbers of patients to be treated in the CPU and patient demographics. We determined results of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and bilateral lower extremity (BLE) venous duplex ultrasound for PE patients to estimate potential inpatient admission rates from the CPU. We reviewed the electronic medical records during the 30-day period after hospital admission for patient mortality. We then created a protocol for the treatment of these low-risk patients in the CPU. RESULTS: A total of 545 patients were admitted with PE during the 6-year period. Of these patients, 282 were considered low risk and potentially appropriate for treatment of PE in the CPU. Of those, 43.3% were male, and the average age was 43.9 years (range: 14-92 years). Mortality was 0% for the low-risk group over the 30 days after hospital admission. A total of 108 patients had TTE performed and, of these, 30 had evidence of right heart strain. Ninety patients had BLE venous duplex and, of these, 15 had a deep venous thrombosis proximal to the popliteal veins. On the basis of our findings, we created a protocol for treatment of low-risk PE patients in the CPU. Patients who are low risk according to PESI score are admitted to the CPU with administration of low-molecular-weight heparin in the ED and initiation of oral anticoagulation therapy. Patients are monitored on telemetry for at least 12 hours, with performance of BLE duplex and TTE while in the CPU. Patients are admitted to an inpatient unit from the CPU if during their stay they exhibit unstable vital signs, a new arrhythmia, deep venous thrombosis proximal to the popliteal veins on BLE duplex, or signs of right heart strain on TTE. Patients who do not meet these criteria are considered appropriate for outpatient treatment and discharged with low-molecular-weight heparin and oral anticoagulation with thrombosis clinic follow-up. Given our findings from the retrospective chart review, we estimated that, at our institution, 4 patients per month would be eligible for treatment of PE in the CPU. With the findings on TTE and BLE duplex, we estimated that 25.3% of eligible patients would eventually require inpatient admission from the CPU. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a number of low-risk patients who may be eligible for treatment of PE in our CPU. Given the resources of the CPU, this may serve as an ideal location for the treatment of low-risk PE patients and allow further risk stratification and consultation beyond that typically readily available in the ED. We described the creation of a protocol for the treatment of low-risk patients with PE in a CPU.