Lisa A. Calder

A Canadian survey of transfusion practices in critically ill patients

OBJECTIVES To characterize the contemporary red cell transfusion practice in the critically ill and to define clinical factors that influence these practices. DESIGN Scenario-based national survey. STUDY POPULATION Canadian critical care practitioners. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS We evaluated transfusion thresholds before transfusion and the number of red cell units ordered, under the given conditions. Of 254 Canadian critical care physicians, 193 (76%) responded to the survey. The primary specialty of most respondents was internal medicine (56%). Internal medicine respondents were in practice for an average of 8.4 +/- 5.7 (SD) yrs, and worked most often in combined medical/surgical intensive care units. Baseline hemoglobin transfusion thresholds averaged from 8.3 +/- 1.0 g/dL in a scenario involving a young stable trauma victim to 9.5 +/- 1.0 g/dL for an older patient after gastrointestinal bleeding. Transfusion thresholds differed significantly (p< .0001) between all four separate scenarios. With the exception of congestive heart failure (p> .05), all clinical factors (including age, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, preoperative status, hypoxemia, shock, lactic acidosis, coronary ischemia, and chronic anemia) significantly (p< .0001) modified the transfusion thresholds. A statistically significant (p< .01) difference in baseline transfusion thresholds was noted across four major regions (with a maximum of five academic centers per region) of the country. Low physician numbers in two of the regions did not allow for further investigation of regional variations. CONCLUSIONS There is significant variation in critical care transfusion practice, with many intensivists adhering to a 10.0-g/dL threshold, while other physicians described a much more restrictive approach to red cell transfusion. Also, many physicians opted to administer multiple units, despite published guidelines to the contrary. Additionally, the administration of red cells was strongly influenced by a number of clinical factors, many unique to intensive care unit patients. There is a need for prospective studies to define optimal practice in the critically ill.

Development of a Clinical Prediction Rule for 30-Day Cardiac Events in Emergency Department Patients With Chest Pain and Possible Acute Coronary Syndrome

STUDY OBJECTIVE Evaluation of emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain who are at low risk for acute coronary syndrome is resource intensive and may lead to false-positive test results and unnecessary downstream procedures. We seek to identify patients at low short-term risk for a cardiac event for whom additional ED investigations might be unnecessary. METHODS We prospectively enrolled patients older than 24 years and with a primary complaint of chest pain from 3 academic EDs. Physicians completed standardized data collection forms before diagnostic testing. The primary adjudicated outcome was acute myocardial infarction, revascularization, or death of cardiac or unknown cause within 30 days. We used recursive partitioning to derive the rule and validated the model with 5,000 bootstrap replications. RESULTS Of 2,718 patients enrolled, 336 (12%) experienced a cardiac event within 30 days (6% acute myocardial infarction, 10% revascularization, 0.2% death). We developed a rule consisting of the absence of 5 predictors: ischemic ECG changes not known to be old, history of coronary artery disease, pain typical for acute coronary syndrome, initial or 6-hour troponin level greater than the 99th percentile, and age greater than 50 years. Patients aged 40 years or younger required only a single troponin evaluation. The rule was 100% sensitive (95% confidence interval 97.2% to 100.0%) and 20.9% specific (95% confidence interval 16.9% to 24.9%) for a cardiac event within 30 days. CONCLUSION This clinical prediction rule identifies ED chest pain patients at very low risk for a cardiac event who may be suitable for discharge. A prospective multicenter study is needed to validate the rule and determine its effect on practice.

A COMPARISON OF CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINE APPRAISAL INSTRUMENTS

OBJECTIVE To identify and compare clinical practice guideline appraisal instruments. METHODS Appraisal instruments, defined as instruments intended to be used for guideline evaluation, were identified by searching MEDLINE (1966-99) using the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) practice guidelines, reviewing bibliographies of the retrieved articles, and contacting authors of guideline appraisal instruments. Two reviewers independently examined the questions/statements from all the instruments and thematically grouped them. The 44 groupings were collapsed into 10 guideline attributes. Using the items, two reviewers independently undertook a content analysis of the instruments. RESULTS Fifteen instruments were identified, and two were excluded because they were not focused on evaluation. All instruments were developed after 1992 and contained 8 to 142 questions/statements. Of the 44 items used for the content analysis, the number of items covered by each instrument ranged from 6 to 34. Only the instrument by Cluzeau and colleagues included at least one item for each of the 10 attributes, and it addressed 28 of the 44 items. This instrument and that of Shaneyfelt et al. are the only instruments that have so far been validated. CONCLUSIONS A comprehensive, concise, and valid instrument could help users systematically judge the quality and utility of clinical practice guidelines. The current instruments vary widely in length and comprehensiveness. There is insufficient evidence to support the exclusive use of any one instrument, although the Cluzeau instrument has received the greatest evaluation. More research is required on the reliability and validity of existing guideline appraisal instruments before any one instrument can become widely adopted.

Prevalence of information gaps for seniors transferred from nursing homes to the emergency department

OBJECTIVE Information gaps, defined as previously collected information that is not available to the treating physician, have implications for patient safety and system efficiency. For patients transferred to an emergency department (ED) from a nursing home or seniors residence, we determined the frequency and type of clinically important information gaps and the impact of a regional transfer form. METHODS During a 6-month period, we studied consecutive patients who were identified through the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System database. Patients were over 60 years of age, lived in a nursing home or seniors residence, and arrived by ambulance to a tertiary care ED. We abstracted data from original transfer and ED records using a structured data collection tool. We measured the frequency of prespecified information gaps, which we defined as the failure to communicate information usually required by an emergency physician (EP). We also determined the use of the standardized patient transfer form that is used in Ontario and its impact on the rate of information gaps that occur in our community. RESULTS We studied 457 transfers for 384 patients. Baseline dementia was present in 34.1% of patients. Important information gaps occurred in 85.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82.0%-88.0%) of cases. Specific information gaps along with their relative frequency included the following: the reason for transfer (12.9%), the baseline cognitive function and communication ability (36.5%), vital signs (37.6%), advanced directives (46.4%), medication (20.4%), activities of daily living (53.0%) and mobility (47.7%). A standardized transfer form was used in 42.7% of transfers. When the form was used, information gaps were present in 74.9% of transfers compared with 93.5% of the transfers when the form was not used (p < 0.001). descriptors of the patients chief complaint were frequently absent (81.0% for head injury [any information about loss of consciousness], 42.4% for abdominal pain and 47.1% for chest pain [any information on location, severity and duration]). CONCLUSION Information gaps occur commonly when elderly patients are transferred from a nursing home or seniors residence to the ED. A standardized transfer form was associated with a limited reduction in the prevalence of information gaps; even when the form was used, a large percentage of the transfers were missing information. We also determined that the lack of descriptive detail regarding the presenting problem was common. We believe this represents a previously unidentified information gap in the literature about nursing home transfers. Future research should focus on the clinical impact of information gaps. System improvements should focus on educational and regulatory interventions, as well as adjustments to the transfer form.

A Risk Scoring System to Identify Emergency Department Patients With Heart Failure at High Risk for Serious Adverse Events

OBJECTIVES There are no validated guidelines to guide physicians with difficult disposition decisions for emergency department (ED) patients with heart failure (HF). The authors sought to develop a risk scoring system to identify HF patients at high risk for serious adverse events (SAEs). METHODS This was a prospective cohort study at six large Canadian EDS that enrolled adult patients who presented with acute decompensated HF. Each patient was assessed for standardized clinical and laboratory variables as well as for SAEs defined as death, intubation, admission to a monitored unit, or relapse requiring admission. Adjusted odds ratios for predictors of SAEs were calculated by stepwise logistic regression. RESULTS In 559 visits, 38.1% resulted in patient admission. Of 65 (11.6%) SAE cases, 31 (47.7%) occurred in patients not initially admitted. The multivariate model and resultant Ottawa Heart Failure Risk Scale consists of 10 elements, and the risk of SAEs varied from 2.8% to 89.0%, with good calibration between observed and expected probabilities. Internal validation showed the risk scores to be very accurate across 1,000 replications using the bootstrap method. A threshold of 1, 2, or 3 total scores for admission would be associated with sensitivities of 95.2, 80.6, or 64.5%, respectively, all better than current practice. CONCLUSIONS Many HF patients are discharged home from the ED and then suffer SAEs or death. The authors have developed an accurate risk scoring system that could ultimately be used to stratify the risk of poor outcomes and to enable rational and safe disposition decisions.

Prospective validation of a modified thrombolysis in myocardial infarction risk score in emergency department patients with chest pain and possible acute coronary syndrome.

OBJECTIVES This study attempted to prospectively validate a modified Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) risk score that classifies patients with either ST-segment deviation or cardiac troponin elevation as high risk. The objectives were to determine the ability of the modified score to risk-stratify emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain and to identify patients safe for early discharge. METHODS This was a prospective cohort study in an urban academic ED over a 9-month period. Patients over 24 years of age with a primary complaint of chest pain were enrolled. On-duty physicians completed standardized data collection forms prior to diagnostic testing. Cardiac troponin T-values of >99th percentile (> or =0.01 ng/mL) were considered elevated. The primary outcome was acute myocardial infarction (AMI), revascularization, or death within 30 days. The overall diagnostic accuracy of the risk scores was compared by generating receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and comparing the area under the curve. The performance of the risk scores at potential decision thresholds was assessed by calculating the sensitivity and specificity at each potential cut-point. RESULTS The study enrolled 1,017 patients with the following characteristics: mean (+/-SD) age 59.3 (+/-13.8) years, 60.6% male, 17.9% with a history of diabetes, and 22.4% with a history of myocardial infarction. A total of 117 (11.5%) experienced a cardiac event within 30 days (6.6% AMI, 8.9% revascularization, 0.2% death of cardiac or unknown cause). The modified TIMI risk score outperformed the original with regard to overall diagnostic accuracy (area under the ROC curve = 0.83 vs. 0.79; p = 0.030; absolute difference 0.037; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.004 to 0.071). The specificity of the modified score was lower at all cut-points of >0. Sensitivity and specificity at potential decision thresholds were: >0 = sensitivity 96.6%, specificity 23.7%; >1 = sensitivity 91.5%, specificity 54.2%; and >2 = sensitivity 80.3%, specificity 73.4%. The lowest cut-point (TIMI/modified TIMI >0) was the only cut-point to predict cardiac events with sufficient sensitivity to consider early discharge. The sensitivity and specificity of the modified and original TIMI risk scores at this cut-point were identical. CONCLUSIONS The modified TIMI risk score outperformed the original with regard to overall diagnostic accuracy. However, it had lower specificity at all cut-points of >0, suggesting suboptimal risk stratification in high-risk patients. It also lacked sufficient sensitivity and specificity to safely guide patient disposition. Both scores are insufficiently sensitive and specific to recommend as the sole means of determining disposition in ED chest pain patients.

Mapping Out the Emergency Department Disposition Decision for High-Acuity Patients

STUDY OBJECTIVE There are sparse data on how emergency health professionals make the important decision of emergency department (ED) patient admission or discharge, also known as the disposition decision. This study seeks to create a process map, a visual step-by-step diagram, and highlight error-prone areas for disposition decisions for high-acuity or nonambulatory ED patients. METHODS We conducted 6 focus groups at an academic tertiary care ED: residents, social workers and registered nurses, registered nurses only, attending physicians, patient safety committee members, and consensus group from the 5 preceding groups. We asked participants to create a disposition decision process map and identify error-prone areas. We audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed the sessions for themes, using qualitative techniques. RESULTS Forty-two stakeholders with clinical experience from 1 to 30 years participated. We found 9 dominant themes (ordered according to prevalence): triage, ED location of patient assessment, monitoring, diagnosis, departmental busyness, clinical gestalt, response to treatment, social work involvement, and patient and family communication. Groups identified overarching themes such as risk stratification and administrative policy. One group included dynamic elements such as interactions with consultants and handover. Participants described the following contributors to disposition error: triage, diagnostic error, communication error, ED location of patient assessment, and ED crowding. CONCLUSION Participants endorsed triage, diagnostic error, communication error, ED location of patient assessment, and ED crowding as the most important contributors to ED disposition decisionmaking errors. Understanding these factors in clinical decisionmaking is fundamental to improving future ED patient safety.

Adverse events among patients registered in high-acuity areas of the emergency department: a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE To enhance patient safety, it is important to understand the frequency and causes of adverse events (defined as unintended injuries related to health care management). We performed this study to describe the types and risk of adverse events in high-acuity areas of the emergency department (ED). METHODS This prospective cohort study examined the outcomes of consecutive patients who received treatment at 2 tertiary care EDs. For discharged patients, we conducted a structured telephone interview 14 days after their initial visit; for admitted patients, we reviewed the inpatient charts. Three emergency physicians independently adjudicated flagged outcomes (e.g., death, return visits to the ED) to determine whether an adverse event had occurred. RESULTS We enrolled 503 patients; one-half (n = 254) were female and the median age was 57 (range 18-98) years. The majority of patients (n = 369, 73.3%) were discharged home. The most common presenting complaints were chest pain, generalized weakness and abdominal pain. Of the 107 patients with flagged outcomes, 43 (8.5%, 95% confidence interval 8.1%-8.9%) were considered to have had an adverse event through our peer review process, and over half of these (24, 55.8%) were considered preventable. The most common types of adverse events were as follows: management issues (n = 18, 41.9%), procedural complications (n = 13, 30.2%) and diagnostic issues (n = 10, 23.3%). The clinical consequences of these adverse events ranged from minor (urinary tract infection) to serious (delayed diagnosis of aortic dissection). CONCLUSION We detected a higher proportion of preventable adverse events compared with previous inpatient studies and suggest confirmation of these results is warranted among a wider selection of EDs.

Enhancing the quality of morbidity and mortality rounds: the Ottawa M&M model.

OBJECTIVES The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a structured morbidity and mortality (M&M) rounds model through an innovative educational intervention. METHODS The authors engaged the Departments of Emergency Medicine (EM) and Trauma Services at a tertiary care teaching hospital. A needs assessment was performed; the Ottawa M&M rounds model was developed, implemented, and then evaluated as a four-part intervention. This consisted of: 1) physician training on case selection and analysis, 2) engaging interprofessional members, 3) disseminating lessons learned, and 4) creating an administrative pathway for acting on issues identified through the M&M rounds. The measures of intervention feasibility included the proportion of sessions adherent to the new model and M&M rounds attendance. Pre- and postintervention surveys of presenters and attendees were used to determine intervention acceptability. M&M presentation content was reviewed to determine the most frequently adopted components of the model. RESULTS Nine of 14 (64.3%) sessions were adherent to three of four components of the Ottawa M&M Model. Of those M&M attendees who responded to the survey (796 of 912, 87.2%), improvements were found in M&M rounds attendance as well as perceived effect on clinical practice at both individual and departmental levels. Thirty-seven case presentations were analyzed and improvements postintervention were found in appropriate case selection and recognition of cognitive and system issues. CONCLUSIONS The Ottawa M&M Model was a feasible intervention that was perceived to be effective by both presenters and attendees. The authors believe that this could be readily applied to any hospital department seeking to enhance quality of care and patient safety.

Adverse events in patients with return emergency department visits

Objectives This study describes the proportion of emergency department (ED) returns within 7 days due to adverse events, defined as adverse outcomes related to healthcare received. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting We used an electronically triggered adverse event surveillance system at a tertiary care ED from May to June 2010 to examine ED returns within 7 days of index visit. Participants One of three trained nurses determined whether the visit was related to index emergency care. For such records, one of three trained emergency physicians conducted adverse event determinations. Main outcome measure We determined adverse event type and severity and analysed the data with descriptive statistics, χ2 tests and logistic regression. Results Of 13 495 index ED visits, 923 (6.8%) were followed by ED returns within 7 days. The median age of all patients was 47 years and 52.8% were women. After nursing review, 211 cases required physician review. Of these, 53 visits were adverse events (positive predictive value (PPV)=5.7%, 95% CI 4.4% to 7.4%) and 30 (56.6%) were preventable. Common adverse event types involved management, diagnostic or medication issues. We observed one potentially preventable death and 58.5% of adverse events resulting in transient disability. The PPV of a modified trigger with a cut-off of return within 72 h, resulting in admission was 11.9% (95% CI 6.8% to 18.9%). Conclusions Our electronic trigger efficiently identified adverse events among 12% of patients with ED returns within 72 h, requiring hospital admission. Given the high degree of preventability of the identified adverse events, this trigger also holds promise as a performance measurement tool.