Search

Background: Unused opioid prescriptions can be a driver of opioid misuse. Our objective was to determine the optimal quantity of opioids to prescribe to patients with acute pain at emergency department discharge, in order to meet their analgesic needs while limiting the amount of unused opioids., Methods: In a prospective, multicentre cohort study, we included consecutive patients aged 18 years and older with an acute pain condition present for less than 2 weeks who were discharged from emergency department with an opioid prescription. Participants completed a pain medication diary for real-time recording of quantity, doses, and names of all analgesics consumed during a 14-day follow-up period., Results: We included 2240 participants, who had a mean age of 51 years; 48% were female. Over 14 days, participants consumed a median of 5 (quartiles, 1-14) morphine 5 mg tablet equivalents, with significant variation across pain conditions ( p < 0.001). Most opioid tablets prescribed (63%) were unused. To meet the opioid need of 80% of patients for 2 weeks, we found that those experiencing renal colic or abdominal pain required fewer opioid tablets (8 morphine 5 mg tablet equivalents) than patients who had fractures (24 tablets), back pain (21 tablets), neck pain (17 tablets), or other musculoskeletal pain (16 tablets)., Interpretation: Two-thirds of opioid tablets prescribed at emergency department discharge for acute pain were unused, whereas opioid requirements varied significantly based on the cause of acute pain. Smaller, cause-specific opioid prescriptions could provide adequate pain management while reducing the risk of opioid misuse., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT03953534., Competing Interests: Competing interests:: Justin Yan reports receiving funding from the Spring 2021 Innovation Fund from the Academic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario, and the 2021 Internal Research Fund for Pilot Studies from the Lawson Health Research Institute. Dr. Yan has also served as the chair of the data safety monitoring boards of the RAFF4 Study and the REMOSYNCED Study, and vice-chair of the Canadian Association of the Emergency Physicians Research Committee. Jeffrey Perry reports receiving a peer review salary support grant from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario. Gilles Lavigne reports receiving consulting fees from Straumann Suisse related to a sleep bruxism device, and an oral appliance for sleep apnea from Panthera Dental. Dr. Lavigne is also a board member of the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences. No other competing interests were declared., (© 2024 CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: Jeffrey Perry and Michel Shamy report funding from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, as well as participation on the Canadian Stroke Best Practice Guidelines group. Michel Shamy also reports funding from the New Frontiers in Research Fund, participation on the data safety monitoring board of the FRONTIERS trial and participation on Canadian Stroke Consortium ethics committee. No other competing interests were declared.

Background: The Ottawa chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) Risk Scale (OCRS), which consists of 10 criteria, was previously derived to identify patients in the emergency department with COPD who were at high risk for short-term serious outcomes. We sought to validate, prospectively and explicitly, the OCRS when applied by physicians in the emergency department., Methods: We conducted this prospective cohort study involving patients in the emergency departments at 6 tertiary care hospitals and enrolled adults with acute exacerbation of COPD from May 2011 to December 2013. Physicians evaluated patients for the OCRS criteria, which were recorded on a data form along with the total risk score. We followed patients for 30 days and the primary outcome, short-term serious outcomes, was defined as any of death, admission to monitored unit, intubation, noninvasive ventilation, myocardial infarction (MI) or relapse with hospital admission., Results: We enrolled 1415 patients with a mean age of 70.6 (SD 10.6) years and 50.2% were female. Short-term serious outcomes occurred in 135 (9.5%) cases. Incidence of short-term serious outcomes ranged from 4.6% for a total score of 0 to 100% for a score of 10. Compared with current practice, an OCRS score threshold of greater than 1 would increase sensitivity for short-term serious outcomes from 51.9% to 79.3% and increase admissions from 45.0% to 56.6%. A threshold of greater than 2 would improve sensitivity to 71.9% with 47.9% of patients being admitted., Interpretation: In this clinical validation of a risk-stratification tool for COPD in the emergency department, we found that OCRS showed better sensitivity for short-term serious outcomes compared with current practice. This risk scale can now be used to help emergency department disposition decisions for patients with COPD, which should lead to a decrease in unnecessary admissions and in unsafe discharges., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Andrew McRae received a research grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the submitted work. Ian Stiell received a research grant from CIHR that was paid to his institution. No other competing interests were declared., (© 2018 Joule Inc. or its licensors.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background: We previously derived the Ottawa Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Rule to identify subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) in patients with acute headache. Our objective was to validate the rule in a new cohort of consecutive patients who visited an emergency department., Methods: We conducted a multicentre prospective cohort study at 6 university-affiliated tertiary-care hospital emergency departments in Canada from January 2010 to January 2014. We included alert, neurologically intact adult patients with a headache peaking within 1 hour of onset. Treating physicians in the emergency department explicitly scored the rule before investigations were started. We defined subarachnoid hemorrhage as detection of any of the following: subarachnoid blood visible upon computed tomography of the head (from the final report by the local radiologist); xanthochromia in the cerebrospinal fluid (by visual inspection); or the presence of erythrocytes (> 1 × 10 6 /L) in the final tube of cerebrospinal fluid, with an aneurysm or arteriovenous malformation visible upon cerebral angiography. We calculated sensitivity and specificity of the Ottawa SAH Rule for detecting or ruling out subarachnoid hemorrhage., Results: Treating physicians enrolled 1153 of 1743 (66.2%) potentially eligible patients, including 67 with subarachnoid hemorrhage. The Ottawa SAH Rule had 100% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI] 94.6%-100%) with a specificity of 13.6% (95% CI 13.1%-15.8%), whereas neuroimaging rates remained similar (about 87%)., Interpretation: We found that the Ottawa SAH Rule was sensitive for identifying subarachnoid hemorrhage in otherwise alert and neurologically intact patients. We believe that the Ottawa SAH Rule can be used to rule out this serious diagnosis, thereby decreasing the number of cases missed while constraining rates of neuroimaging., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Jeffrey Perry, Marco Sivilotti, Jane Sutherland, Howard Lesiuk, Corinne Hohl, Marcel Émond, Lisa Calder, Christian Vaillancourt, Venkatesh Thirganasambandamoorthy and Ian Stiell received grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research during the conduct of the study. Christian Vaillancourt also received a grant from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada during the conduct of the study. No other competing interests were declared., (© 2017 Joule Inc. or its licensors.)

Background: Most patients with chest pain in the emergency department are assigned to cardiac monitoring for several hours, blocking access for patients in greater need. We sought to validate a previously derived decision rule for safe removal of patients from cardiac monitoring after initial evaluation in the emergency department., Methods: We prospectively enrolled adults (age ≥ 18 yr) who presented with chest pain and were assigned to cardiac monitoring at 2 academic emergency departments over 18 months. We collected standardized baseline characteristics, findings from clinical evaluations and predictors for the Ottawa Chest Pain Cardiac Monitoring Rule: whether the patient is currently free of chest pain, and whether the electrocardiogram is normal or shows only nonspecific changes. The outcome was an arrhythmia requiring intervention in the emergency department or within 8 hours of presentation to the emergency department. We calculated diagnostic characteristics for the clinical prediction rule., Results: We included 796 patients (mean age 63.8 yr, 55.8% male, 8.9% admitted to hospital). Fifteen patients (1.9%) had an arrhythmia, and the rule performed with the following characteristics: sensitivity 100% (95% confidence interval [CI] 78.2%-100%) and specificity 36.4% (95% CI 33.0%-39.6%). Application of the Ottawa Chest Pain Cardiac Monitoring Rule would have allowed 284 out of 796 patients (35.7%) to be safely removed from cardiac monitoring., Interpretation: We successfully validated the decision rule for safe removal of a large subset of patients with chest pain from cardiac monitoring after initial evaluation in the emergency department. Implementation of this simple yet highly sensitive rule will allow for improved use of health care resources., (© 2017 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors.)

Background: Syncope can be caused by serious conditions not evident during initial evaluation, which can lead to serious adverse events, including death, after disposition from the emergency department. We sought to develop a clinical decision tool to identify adult patients with syncope who are at risk of a serious adverse event within 30 days after disposition from the emergency department., Methods: We prospectively enrolled adults (age ≥ 16 yr) with syncope who presented within 24 hours after the event to 1 of 6 large emergency departments from Sept. 29, 2010, to Feb. 27, 2014. We collected standardized variables at index presentation from clinical evaluation and investigations. Adjudicated serious adverse events included death, myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, structural heart disease, pulmonary embolism, serious hemorrhage and procedural interventions within 30 days., Results: We enrolled 4030 patients with syncope; the mean age was 53.6 years, 55.5% were women, and 9.5% were admitted to hospital. Serious adverse events occurred in 147 (3.6%) of the patients within 30 days after disposition from the emergency department. Of 43 candidate predictors examined, we included 9 in the final model: predisposition to vasovagal syncope, heart disease, any systolic pressure reading in the emergency department < 90 or > 180 mm Hg, troponin level above 99th percentile for the normal population, abnormal QRS axis (< -30° or > 100°), QRS duration longer than 130 ms, QTc interval longer than 480 ms, emergency department diagnosis of cardiac syncope and emergency department diagnosis of vasovagal syncope (C statistic 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-0.90; optimism 0.015; goodness-of-fit p = 0.11). The risk of a serious adverse event within 30 days ranged from 0.4% for a score of -3 to 83.6% for a score of 11. The sensitivity was 99.2% (95% CI 95.9%-100%) for a threshold score of -2 or higher and 97.7% (95% CI 93.5%-99.5%) for a threshold score of -1 or higher., Interpretation: The Canadian Syncope Risk Score showed good discrimination and calibration for 30-day risk of serious adverse events after disposition from the emergency department. Once validated, the tool will be able to accurately stratify the risk of serious adverse events among patients presenting with syncope, including those at low risk who can be discharged home quickly., (© 2016 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors.)

Background: To assist physicians with difficult decisions about hospital admission for patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) presenting in the emergency department, we sought to identify clinical characteristics associated with serious adverse events., Methods: We conducted this prospective cohort study in 6 large Canadian academic emergency departments. Patients were assessed for standardized clinical variables and then followed for serious adverse events, defined as death, intubation, admission to a monitored unit or new visit to the emergency department requiring admission., Results: We enrolled 945 patients, of whom 354 (37.5%) were admitted to hospital. Of 74 (7.8%) patients with a subsequent serious adverse event, 36 (49%) had not been admitted after the initial emergency visit. Multivariable modelling identified 5 variables that were independently associated with adverse events: prior intubation, initial heart rate ≥ 110/minute, being too ill to do a walk test, hemoglobin < 100 g/L and urea ≥ 12 mmol/L. A preliminary risk scale incorporating these and 5 other clinical variables produced risk categories ranging from 2.2% for a score of 0 to 91.4% for a score of 10. Using a risk score of 2 or higher as a threshold for admission would capture all patients with a predicted risk of adverse events of 7.2% or higher, while only slightly increasing admission rates, from 37.5% to 43.2%., Interpretation: In Canada, many patients with COPD suffer a serious adverse event or death after being discharged home from the emergency department. We identified high-risk characteristics and developed a preliminary risk scale that, once validated, could be used to stratify the likelihood of poor outcomes and to enable rational and safe admission decisions.

Background: The ABCD2 score (Age, Blood pressure, Clinical features, Duration of symptoms and Diabetes) is used to identify patients having a transient ischemic attack who are at high risk for imminent stroke. However, despite its widespread implementation, the ABCD2 score has not yet been prospectively validated. We assessed the accuracy of the ABCD2 score for predicting stroke at 7 (primary outcome) and 90 days., Methods: This prospective cohort study enrolled adults from eight Canadian emergency departments who had received a diagnosis of transient ischemic attack. Physicians completed data forms with the ABCD2 score before disposition. The outcome criterion, stroke, was established by a treating neurologist or by an Adjudication Committee. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity for predicting stroke 7 and 90 days after visiting the emergency department using the original "high-risk" cutpoint of an ABCD2 score of more than 5, and the American Heart Association recommendation of a score of more than 2., Results: We enrolled 2056 patients (mean age 68.0 yr, 1046 (50.9%) women) who had a rate of stroke of 1.8% at 7 days and 3.2% at 90 days. An ABCD2 score of more than 5 had a sensitivity of 31.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 19.1-47.5) for stroke at 7 days and 29.2% (95% CI 19.6-41.2) for stroke at 90 days. An ABCD2 score of more than 2 resulted in sensitivity of 94.7% (95% CI 82.7-98.5) for stroke at 7 days with a specificity of 12.5% (95% CI 11.2-14.1). The accuracy of the ABCD2 score as calculated by either the enrolling physician (area under the curve 0.56; 95% CI 0.47-0.65) or the coordinating centre (area under the curve 0.65; 95% CI 0.57-0.73) was poor., Interpretation: This multicentre prospective study involving patients in emergency departments with transient ischemic attack found the ABCD2 score to be inaccurate, at any cut-point, as a predictor of imminent stroke. Furthermore, the ABCD2 score of more than 2 that is recommended by the American Heart Association is nonspecific.

Background: The Canadian CT Head Rule was developed to allow physicians to be more selective when ordering computed tomography (CT) imaging for patients with minor head injury. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of implementing this validated decision rule at multiple emergency departments., Methods: We conducted a matched-pair cluster-randomized trial that compared the outcomes of 4531 patients with minor head injury during two 12-month periods (before and after) at hospital emergency departments in Canada, six of which were randomly allocated as intervention sites and six as control sites. At the intervention sites, active strategies, including education, changes to policy and real-time reminders on radiologic requisitions were used to implement the Canadian CT Head Rule. The main outcome measure was referral for CT scan of the head., Results: Baseline characteristics of patients were similar when comparing control to intervention sites. At the intervention sites, the proportion of patients referred for CT imaging increased from the "before" period (62.8%) to the "after" period (76.2%) (difference +13.3%, 95% CI 9.7%-17.0%). At the control sites, the proportion of CT imaging usage also increased, from 67.5% to 74.1% (difference +6.7%, 95% CI 2.6%-10.8%). The change in mean imaging rates from the "before" period to the "after" period for intervention versus control hospitals was not significant (p = 0.16). There were no missed brain injuries or adverse outcomes., Interpretation: Our knowledge-translation-based trial of the Canadian CT Head Rule did not reduce rates of CT imaging in Canadian emergency departments. Future studies should identify strategies to deal with barriers to implementation of this decision rule and explore more effective approaches to knowledge translation. (ClinicalTrials.gov trial register no. NCT00993252).