Search

Medical encounters require an efficient and focused history of present illness (HPI) to create differential diagnoses and guide diagnostic testing and treatment. Our aim was to compare the HPI of notes created by an automated digital intake tool versus standard medical notes created by clinicians.Prospective trial in a quaternary academic Emergency Department (ED). Notes were compared using the 5-point Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9) scale and the Centers for MedicareMedicaid Services (CMS) level of complexity index. Reviewers were board certified emergency medicine physicians blinded to note origin. Reviewers received training and calibration prior to note assessments. A difference of 1 point was considered clinically significant. Analysis included McNemar's (binary), Wilcoxon-rank (Likert), and agreement with Cohen's Kappa.A total of 148 ED medical encounters were charted by both digital note and standard clinical note. The ability to capture patient information was assessed through comparison of note content across paired charts (digital-standard note on the same patient), as well as scores given by the reviewers. Reviewer agreement was kappa 0.56 (CI 0.49-0.64), indicating moderate level of agreement between reviewers scoring the same patient chart. Considering all 18 questions across PDQI-9 and CMS scales, the average agreement between standard clinical note and digital note was 54.3% (IQR 44.4-66.7%). There was a moderate level of agreement between content of standard and digital notes (kappa 0.54, 95%CI 0.49-0.60). The quality of the digital note was within the 1 point clinically significant difference for all of the attributes, except for conciseness. Digital notes had a higher frequency of CMS severity elements identified.Digitally generated clinical notes had moderate agreement compared to standard clinical notes and within the one point clinically significant difference except for the conciseness attribute. Digital notes more reliably documented billing components of severity. The use of automated notes should be further explored to evaluate its utility in facilitating documentation of patient encounters.

To evaluate the association between potential emergency department (ED)-based modifiable risk factors and subsequent development of delirium among hospitalized older adults free of delirium at the time of ED stay.Observational cohort study of patients aged ≥75 years who screened negative for delirium in the ED, were subsequently admitted to the hospital, and had delirium screening performed within 48 h of admission. Potential ED-based risk factors for delirium included ED length of stay (LOS), administration of opioids, benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, or anticholinergics, and the placement of urinary catheter while in the ED. Odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.Among 472 patients without delirium in the ED (mean age 84 years, 54.2% females), 33 (7.0%) patients developed delirium within 48 h of hospitalization. The ED LOS of those who developed delirium was similar to those who did not develop delirium (312.1 vs 325.6 min, MD -13.5 min, CI -56.1 to 29.0). Patients who received opioids in the ED were as likely to develop delirium as those who did not receive opioids (7.2% vs 6.9%: OR 1.04, CI 0.44 to 2.48). Patients who received benzodiazepines had a higher risk of incident delirium, the difference was clinically but not statistically significant (37.3% vs 6.5%, OR 5.35, CI 0.87 to 23.81). Intermittent urinary catheterization (OR 2.05, CI 1.00 to 4.22) and Foley placement (OR 3.69, CI 1.55 to 8.80) were associated with a higher risk of subsequent delirium. After adjusting for presence of dementia, only Foley placement in the ED remained significantly associated with development of in-hospital delirium (adjusted OR 3.16, CI 1.22 to 7.53).ED LOS and ED opioid use were not associated with higher risk of incident delirium in this cohort. Urinary catheterization in the ED was associated with an increased risk of subsequent delirium. These findings can be used to design ED-based initiatives and increase delirium prevention efforts.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the QTc interval variation after low-dose droperidol in a population of undifferentiated, stable, and non-agitated patients receiving droperidol in the emergency department. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of patients aged ≥ 12 years of age who received low-dose droperidol (≤ 2.5 mg) for indications other than acute behavioral disturbances. QTc intervals were monitored in real-time during pre-specified observation periods in the ED. Primary outcome was variation of QTc interval after droperidol administration, defined as the maximum delta (change) of QTc interval. Other outcomes included proportion of patients with a QTc ≥ 500 ms after droperidol, delta ≥ +60 ms, and incidence of clinical adverse events. Patients were monitored up to 30 minutes after IV bolus and up to 46 minutes after infusion. RESULTS: A total of 68 patients were included (mean age 42.1 years, 66.2% females). The median dose of droperidol was 1.875 mg (range 0.625 mg, 2.5 mg) and 94.1% received droperidol for headache management. Most patients received droperidol as a 2-minute bolus (n = 41, 60.3%). The mean maximum delta of QTc interval after droperidol across all 68 patients was +29.9 ms (SD 15). A total of 12 patients (17.6%) experienced a QTc interval ≥ 500 ms during the observation period after droperidol, and 3 patients (4.4%) had a delta QTc ≥ +60 ms. There were no serious arrhythmias, such as TdP, or deaths among the 68 participants in this study (0/68). However, 13.2% (n=9) had at least one non-serious adverse event including restlessness and/or anxiety. CONCLUSION: The QTc interval slightly increased after droperidol administration, but these prolongations were brief, mostly below 500 msec and did not lead to serious arrhythmias. The yield of continuous cardiac monitoring in patients receiving low doses of droperidol is likely low.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the short-term mortality of adult patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with altered mental status (AMS) as compared to other common chief complaints. METHODS: Observational cohort study of adult patients (age ≥ 40) who presented to an academic ED over a 1-year period with five pre-specified complaints at ED triage: AMS, generalized weakness, chest pain, abdominal pain, and headache. Primary outcomes included 7- and 30-day mortality. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age, acuity level, and comorbidities. RESULTS: A total of 9,850 ED visits were included for analysis from which 101 (1.0%) and 295 (3.0%) died within 7 and 30 days, respectively. Among 683 AMS visits, the 7-day mortality rate was 3.2%. Mortality was lower for all other chief complaints, including generalized weakness (17/1170, 1.5%), abdominal pain (32/3609, 0.9%), chest pain (26/3548, 0.7%), and headache (4/840, 0.5%). After adjusting for key confounders, patients presenting with AMS had a significantly higher risk of death within 7 days of ED arrival than patients presenting with chest pain (HR 3.72, 95% CI 2.05 to 6.76, p

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify risk factors for delirium in geriatric patients in the emergency department and to identify emergency department (ED)-based modifiable risk factors for developing delirium during hospitalization. We searched evidence based medicine reviews, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science for observational studies from the time of their inception to July 2020. We included studies that evaluated potential risk factors for either prevalent or incident delirium among older adults (age ≥ 60 years) presenting to the ED. When appropriate, we meta-analyzed estimates for risk factors using a random-effects model. The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation approach. The study's protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CDR42020175261). A total of 4,513 citations were reviewed, and 34 studies met the criteria for inclusion: 27 evaluating risk factors for ED delirium (13,412 patients) and 7 evaluating ED-based risk factors for developing delirium during hospitalization (2,238 patients). The prevalence of ED delirium ranged from 7% to 35%. Four factors had strong associations with ED delirium and were graded as high-certainty evidence, including nursing home residence (4 studies; odds ratio [OR], 3.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.17 to 5.48), cognitive impairment (7 studies; OR, 4.46; 95% CI, 3.38 to 5.89), hearing impairment (3 studies, OR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.03 to 6.41), and a history of stroke (3 studies; OR, 3.20; 95% CI, 1.17 to 8.75). The rate of developing delirium during hospitalization ranged from 11% to 27%. A length of stay of more than 10 hours in ED was associated with a higher risk of delirium (1 study; OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.13 to 4.41). One study reported that severe pain, rather than the use of opioids, was associated with the development of delirium. These findings can be used to prioritize delirium screening in the ED and develop novel ED delirium risk scores or prevention interventions.

To describe the emergency department (ED) triage of anaphylaxis patients based on the Emergency Severity Index (ESI), assess the association between ESI triage level and ED epinephrine administration, and determine characteristics associated with lower acuity triage ESI assignment (levels 3 and 4).We conducted a cohort study of adult and pediatric anaphylaxis patients between September 2010 and September 2018 at an academic ED. Patient characteristics and management were compared between Emergency Severity Index (ESI) triage level 1 or 2 versus levels 3 or 4 using logistic regression analysis. We adhered to STROBE reporting guidelines.A total of 1090 patient visits were included. There were 26 (2%), 515 (47%), 489 (45%), and 60 (6%) visits that were assigned an ESI triage level of 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Epinephrine was administered in the ED to 53% of patients triaged ESI level 1 or 2 and to 40% of patients triaged ESI level 3 or 4. Patients who were assigned a lower acuity ESI level of 3 or 4 had a longer median time from ED arrival to epinephrine administration compared to those with a higher acuity ESI level of 1 or 2 (28 min compared to 13 min, p .001). A lower acuity ESI level was more likely to be assigned to visits with a chief concern of hives, rash, or pruritus (OR 2.33 [95% CI, 1.20-4.53]) and less likely to be assigned to visits among adults (OR, 0.43 [0.31-0.60]), patients who received epinephrine from emergency medical services (OR 0.56 [0.38-0.82]), presented with posterior pharyngeal or uvular angioedema (OR, 0.56 [0.38-0.82]), hypoxemia (OR, 0.34 [0.18-0.64]), or increased heart (OR 0.83 [0.73-0.95]) or respiratory (OR 0.70 [0.60-0.82]) rates.Patients triaged to lower acuity ESI levels experienced delays in ED epinephrine administration. Adult and pediatric patients with skin-related chief concerns were more likely to be to be assigned lower acuity ESI levels. Further studies are needed to identify interventions that will improve ED anaphylaxis triage.

Objective To identify predictors of 30-day emergency department (ED) return visits in patients age 65–79 years and age ≥ 80 years. Methods This was a cohort study of older adults who presented to the ED over a 1-year period. A mixed-effects logistic regression model was used to identify predictors for returning to the ED within 30 days. We stratified the cohort into those aged 65–79 years and aged ≥80 years. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported. This study adhered to the STROBE reporting guidelines. Results A total of 21,460 ED visits representing 14,528 unique patients were included. The overall return rate was 15% (1998/13,300 visits) for age 65–79 years, and 16% (1306/8160 visits) for age ≥ 80 years. A history of congestive heart failure (CHF), dementia, or prior hospitalization within 2 years were associated with increased odds of returning in both age groups (for age 65–79: CHF aOR 1.36 [CI 1.16–1.59], dementia aOR 1.27 [CI 1.07–1.49], prior hospitalization aOR 1.36 [CI 1.19–1.56]; for age ≥ 80: CHF aOR 1.32 [CI 1.13–1.55], dementia aOR 1.22 [CI 1.04–1.42], and prior hospitalization aOR 1.27 [CI 1.09–1.47]). Being admitted from the ED was associated with decreased odds of returning to the ED within 30 days (aOR 0.72 [CI 0.64–0.80] for age 65–79 years and 0.72 [CI 0.63–0.82] for age ≥ 80). Conclusion Age alone was not an independent predictor of return visits. Prior hospitalization, dementia and CHF were predictors of 30-day ED return. The identification of predictors of return visits may help to optimize care transition in the ED.

Objective To compare resource utilization and mortality between older and younger adult patients with similar ED chief complaints and ESI triage levels. Methods This was an observational study of consecutive adult patients (age ≥ 40) who presented to an academic ED over a 1-year period with chest pain, abdominal pain, altered mental status, generalized weakness, or headache. Patients were categorized into 40–64, 65–79, and ≥ 80-year old groups. Mortality and utilization outcomes were compared between age groups through logistic regression models or Cox proportional hazards adjusting for ESI level and chief complaint. Odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios (HR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results A total of 9798 ED visits were included. As compared to younger adults (age 40–64), older adults, independently of ESI level and chief complaint, had higher ED laboratory use (OR 1.46 [CI 1.29, 1.66] for age 65–80; OR 1.33 [CI 1.15, 1.55] for age ≥ 80), ED radiology use (OR 1.40 [CI 1.26, 1.56]; OR 1.48 [CI 1.30, 1.69]), hospital admission (OR 1.56 [CI 1.42, 1.72]; OR 1.97 [CI 1.75, 2.21]), and ICU admission (OR 1.38 [CI 1.15, 1.65]; OR 1.23 [CI 0.99, 1.52]). Despite similar ESI and chief complaint, patients age 65–79 and ≥ 80 had higher 30-day mortality rates (HR 1.87 [CI 1.39 to 2.51] and 2.47 [CI 1.81 to 3.37], respectively). Conclusions Older adults with similar chief complaints and ESI levels than younger adults, have significantly higher ED resource use, hospitalization rates, and mortality.

Objective Determine if a comfort cart would improve older adults' comfort and facilitate communication during Emergency Department (ED) visits. Methods A comfort cart containing low-cost, non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient comfort and ability to communicate (e.g., hearing amplifiers, reading glasses) were made available to patients aged ≥65 years. Patients and clinicians were surveyed to assess effectiveness. We followed the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence: SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines. Results Three hundred patients and 100 providers were surveyed. Among patients, 98.0%, 95.1%, and 67.5% somewhat or strongly agreed that the comfort cart improved comfort, overall experience, and independence, respectively. Among providers, 97.0%, 95.0%, 87.0%, and 83% somewhat or strongly agreed that the comfort cart provided comfort, improved patient satisfaction, increased ability to give compassionate care, and increased patient orientation. Conclusion The comfort cart was an affordable and effective intervention that improved patients' comfort by facilitating communication, wellbeing, and compassionate care delivery.

Background Urinary tract infection (UTI) is the second most common infection requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission in emergency department (ED) patients. Optimal empiric management for health care-associated (HCA) UTI is unclear, particularly in the critically ill. Objective To compare clinical failure of broad vs. narrow antibiotic selection in the ED for patients presenting with HCA UTI admitted to the ICU. Methods Observational cohort of patients started on empiric antibiotic for UTI with at least one HCA risk factor (recurrent UTI, chronic urinary catheter or dialysis, urologic procedures, previous antibiotic exposure, hospitalization, or group facility residence). Broad antibiotics covered Pseudomonas spp. and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase. Clinical failure was a composite of multiorgan dysfunction (MODS) by day 2 and in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), readmission, recurrent infection, development of multidrug-resistant organisms, and Clostridium difficile infection. Associations were reported with odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results There were 272 patients included; 196 (72.1%) received broad and 76 (27.9%) received narrow therapy. There was no association between antibiotic selection and clinical failure (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.5–2.25, p = 0.89) or between antibiotic selection and number of HCA risk factors (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73–1.31, p = 0.87). There was an association between clinical failure and MODS on ICU admission (OR 9.14, 95% CI 4.70–17.78, p Conclusion Initial empiric broad or narrow antibiotic coverage in HCA UTI patients who presented to the ED and required ICU admission had similar clinical outcomes.

To synthesize published research exploring emergency department (ED) communication strategies and decision-making with persons living with dementia (PLWD) and their care partners as the basis for a multistakeholder consensus conference to prioritize future research.Systematic scoping review.PLWD and their care partners in the ED setting.Informed by 2 Patient-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome (PICO) questions, we conducted systematic electronic searches of medical research databases for relevant publications following standardized methodological guidelines. The results were presented to interdisciplinary stakeholders, including dementia researchers, clinicians, PLWD, care partners, and advocacy organizations. The PICO questions included: How does communication differ for PLWD compared with persons without dementia? Are there specific communication strategies that improve the outcomes of ED care? Future research areas were prioritized.From 5451 studies identified for PICO-1, 21 were abstracted. From 2687 studies identified for PICO-2, 3 were abstracted. None of the included studies directly evaluated communication differences between PLWD and other populations, nor the effectiveness of specific communication strategies. General themes emerging from the scoping review included perceptions by PLWD/care partners of rushed ED communication, often exacerbated by inconsistent messages between providers. Care partners consistently reported limited engagement in medical decision-making. In order, the research priorities identified included: (1) Barriers/facilitators of effective communication; (2) valid outcome measures of effective communication; (3) best practices for care partner engagement; (4) defining how individual-, provider-, and system-level factors influence communication; and (5) understanding how each member of ED team can ensure high-quality communication.Research exploring ED communication with PLWD is sparse and does not directly evaluate specific communication strategies. Defining barriers and facilitators of effective communication was the highest-ranked research priority, followed by validating outcome measures associated with improved information exchange.

Background Droperidol is a dopamine receptor antagonist that functions as an analgesic, sedative, and antiemetic. In 2001, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration required a black box warning in response to case reports of QT prolongation and potential fatal arrhythmias. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of droperidol in patients presenting to a United States Emergency Department (ED). Methods Observational cohort study of all droperidol administrations from 1/1/2012 through 4/19/2018 at an academic ED. The primary endpoint was mortality within 24 h of droperidol administration. Secondary endpoint included use of rescue analgesics. Results A total of 6,881 visits by 5,784 patients received droperidol of whom 6,353 visits authorized use of their records for research, including 5.4% administrations in children and 8.2% in older adults (≥65). Droperidol was used as an analgesic for pain (N = 1,387, 21.8%) and headache (N = 3,622, 57.0%), as a sedative (N = 550, 8.7%), and as an antiemetic (N = 794, 12.5%). No deaths secondary to droperidol administration were recorded within 24 h. Need for rescue analgesia occurred in 5.2% of patients with headache (N = 188) and 7.4% of patients with pain (N = 102); 1.1% of patients with headache received rescue opioids (N = 38) after droperidol, as did 5.4% of patients with pain other than headache (N = 75). No patients had fatal arrhythmias. Akathisia occurred in 2.9%. Conclusion No fatalities were seen among this large cohort of patients who received droperidol in the ED. Our findings suggest droperidol's effectiveness and safety when used as an analgesic, antiemetic and/or sedative.

The Elderly Risk Assessment (ERA) score is a validated index for primary care patients that predict hospitalizations, mortality, and Emergency Department (ED) visits. The score incorporates age, prior hospital days, marital status, and comorbidities. Our aim was to validate the ERA score in ED patients.Observational cohort study of patients age ≥ 60 presenting to an academic ED over a 1-year period. Regression analyses were performed for associations with outcomes (hospitalization, return visits and death). Medians, interquartile range (IQR), odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.The cohort included 27,397 visits among 18,607 patients. Median age 74 years (66-82), 48% were female and 59% were married. Patients from 54% of visits were admitted to the hospital, 16% returned to the ED within 30 days, and 18% died within one year. Higher ERA scores were associated with: hospital admission (score 10 [4-16] vs 5 [1-11], p 0.0001), return visits (11 [5-17] vs 7 [2-13], p 0.0001); and death within one year (14 [7-20] vs 6 [2-13], p 0.0001). Patients with ERA score ≥ 16 were more likely to be admitted to the hospital, OR 2.14 (2.02-2.28, p 0.0001), return within 30 days OR 1.99 (1.85-2.14), and to die within a year, OR 2.69 (2.54-2.85).The ERA score can be automatically calculated within the electronic health record and helps identify patients at increased risk of death, hospitalization and return ED visits. The ERA score can be applied to ED patients, and may help prognosticate the need for advanced care planning.

Emergency nurses experience multiple traumatizing events during clinical work. Early identification of work-related tension could lead to a timely intervention supporting well-being. We sought to discover whether there is an immediately measurable effect on emotional stress, as determined by changes between pre- and postshift survey scores, associated with exposure to traumatizing events during a single emergency nursing shift.The Emotional Stress Reaction Questionnaire (ESRQ) is a real-time self-assessment tool based on positively, negatively, or neutrally loaded emotions. Participants voluntarily completed pre- and postshift ESRQs over a 6-month period at a quaternary academic emergency department and recorded the number of associated traumatizing events. Associations between number of traumatizing events and ESRQ scores were evaluated using Spearman rank correlation coefficients. Changes in positive-negative balance scores were compared between shifts using a 2-sample t-test.There were 203 responses by 94 nurses. The mean preshift ESRQ score was 11.3 (SD = 5.2), mean postshift score 6.8 (SD = 7.4), and mean change -4.4 (SD = 8.2; t = -7.26; P 0.001). The total number of traumatizing events was correlated with change in ESRQ scores (correlation coefficient of -0.31; P0.001). The mean change in positive-negative scores for shifts without traumatizing events was -1.4 (SD = 6.0) compared with -5.0 (SD = 8.5) for shifts with at least 1 event (t = 2.27; P = 0.03).Our results suggest that repeated exposure to traumatizing events during a single clinical shift was associated with a measurable effect on negative emotional stress in emergency nurses as determined by ESRQ positive-negative balance scores.

Patient-centered care requires that treatments respond to the problematic situation of each patient in a manner that makes intellectual, emotional, and practical sense, an achievement that requires shared decision making (SDM). To implement SDM in practice, tools – sometimes called conversation aids or decision aids – are prepared by collating, curating, and presenting high quality, comprehensive, and up-to-date evidence. Yet, the literature offers limited guidance for how to make evidence support SDM. Here, we describe our approach and the challenges encountered during the development of Anticoagulation Choice, a conversation aid to help patients with atrial fibrillation and their clinicians jointly consider the risk of thromboembolic stroke and decide whether and how to respond to this risk with anticoagulation.

We aimed to describe emergency department (ED) care transition interventions delivered to older adults with cognitive impairment, identify relevant patient-centered outcomes, and determine priority research areas for future investigation.Systematic scoping review.ED patients with cognitive impairment and/or their care partners.Informed by the clinical questions, we conducted systematic electronic searches of medical research databases for relevant publications following published guidelines. The results were presented to a stakeholder group representing ED-based and non-ED-based clinicians, individuals living with cognitive impairment, care partners, and advocacy organizations. After discussion, they voted on potential research areas to prioritize for future investigations.From 3848 publications identified, 78 eligible studies underwent full text review, and 10 articles were abstracted. Common ED-to-community care transition interventions for older adults with cognitive impairment included interdisciplinary geriatric assessments, home visits from medical personnel, and telephone follow-ups. Intervention effects were mixed, with improvements observed in 30-day ED revisit rates but most largely ineffective at promoting connections to outpatient care or improving secondary outcomes such as physical function. Outcomes identified as important to adults with cognitive impairment and their care partners included care coordination between providers and inclusion of care partners in care management within the ED setting. The highest priority research area for future investigation identified by stakeholders was identifying strategies to tailor ED-to-community care transitions for adults living with cognitive impairment complicated by other vulnerabilities such as social isolation or economic disadvantage.This scoping review identified key gaps in ED-to-community care transition interventions delivered to older adults with cognitive impairment. Combined with a stakeholder assessment and prioritization, it identified relevant patient-centered outcomes and clarifies priority areas for future investigation to improve ED care for individuals with impaired cognition, an area of critical need given the current population trends.

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 virus enters cells via the ACE2 receptor, disrupting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone axis, potentially contributing to lung injury. Treatment with angiotensin receptor blockers(ARBs) may mitigate these effects, though induction of ACE2 expression could increase viral entry, replication, and worsen disease. Methods: This study represents a placebo-controlled blinded randomized clinical trial (RCT) to test the efficacy of losartan on outpatients with COVID-19 across three hospital systems in Minnesota, U.S. Participants included symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 not already taking ACE-inhibitors or ARBs, enrolled within 7 days of symptom onset. Patients were randomized to losartan versus placebo for 10 days. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalization within 15 days. Secondary outcomes included functional status, dyspnea, temperature, and viral load. Findings: From April-November 2020, 117 participants were randomized 58 to losartan and 59 to placebo. The primary outcome did not differ significantly between the two arms based on Barnard’s test [losartan arm: 3 events (5.2%; 95% CI 1.8-14.1%) versus placebo arm: 1 event (1.7% 95% CI 0.01-9.0%); proportion difference -3.5% (95% CI -12.7-4.5%); p=0.32]. Functional status, self-reported dyspnea, maximum daily temperatures, and viral load were not significantly different between treatment groups. Due to a lower than expected hospitalization rate and low likelihood of a clinically important treatment effect, the trial was terminated early. Interpretation: In this multicenter blinded RCT for outpatients with mild symptomatic COVID-19 disease, losartan did not significantly reduce hospitalizations, affect functional status or assessment of dyspnea. Viral load was not significantly affected by treatment. This study does not support initiation of losartan for low-risk outpatients. Trial Registration: The trial was conducted under the authority of the Food and Drug Administration (IND 148365), was registered on clinicaltrials.gov prior to study initialization (NCT04311177). Funding Statement: This study was supported by Minnesota Partnership for Biotechnology and Medical Genomics (CON000000076883) Declaration of Interests: The authors have no financial conflicts of interest to disclose. MAP, MHN, TWS, and CJT have received additional funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to conduct a clinical trial of losartan in inpatients with COVID-19. Ethics Approval Statement: The protocol was approved by a central institutional review board and underwent local context review. The study was conducted following good clinical practice guidelines under the oversight of an independent data safety monitoring board (DSMB).

Objectives Despite a high prevalence of coronary heart disease in both genders, studies show a gender disparity in evaluation whereby women are less likely than men to undergo timely or comprehensive cardiac investigation. Using videographic analysis, we sought to quantify gender differences in provider recommendations and patient evaluations. Methods We analyzed video recordings from our Chest Pain Choice trial, a single center patient-level randomized trial in which emergency department patients with chest pain being considered for cardiac stress testing were randomized to shared decision-making or usual care. Patient-provider interactions were video recorded. We compared characteristics and outcomes by gender. Results Of the 204 patients enrolled (101 decision aid; 103 usual care), 120 (58.8%) were female. Of the 75 providers evaluated, 20 (26.7%) were female. The mean (SD) pretest probability of acute coronary syndrome was lower in women [3.7% (2.2) vs 6.7% (4.4), P =.0002]. There was no gender effect on duration of discussion, clinician recommendations, OPTION scores, patient perceptions, or eventual patient dispositions. When the clinician and patient gender matched, OPTION scores were lower (interaction P =.002), and patients were less likely to find the information to be very helpful (interaction P =.10). Conclusions Despite a lower pretest probability of acute coronary syndrome in women, we did not observe any significant gender disparity in how patients were managed and evaluated. When the patients' and providers' gender matched, the provider involved them less in the decision making process, and the information provided was less helpful than when the genders did not match.

Background Risk factors that predict which patients with anaphylaxis might require repeat doses of epinephrine are poorly understood. Objective The objective of this study was to identify risk factors associated with the need for multiple doses of epinephrine during an anaphylactic reaction. Methods Patients were included if they met diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis on presentation to the emergency department (ED) at our academic medical center between April 2008 and February 2014. Data were collected on allergic history, presenting signs and symptoms, anaphylaxis management, and disposition. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to estimate associations between possible risk factors and the need for multiple doses. Results Of 582 ED patients with anaphylaxis, 45 (8%) required multiple doses of epinephrine. By multivariable analysis, factors associated with the need for repeat doses were a history of anaphylaxis (odds ratio [OR], 2.5 [95% CI, 1.3-4.7]; P = .005), the presence of flushing or diaphoresis (OR, 2.4 [95% CI, 1.3-4.5]; P = .007), and the presence of dyspnea (OR, 2.2 [95% CI, 1.0-5.0]; P = .046). Patients who received more than 1 dose were more likely to be admitted to the general medical floor (OR, 2.8 [95% CI, 1.1-7.2]; P = .03) or intensive care unit (OR, 7.6 [95% CI, 3.7-15.6]; P Conclusion Patients with a history of anaphylaxis, flushing or diaphoresis, or dyspnea may require multiple doses of epinephrine to treat anaphylactic reactions. Patients who require more than 1 dose are more likely to be admitted to the hospital, thus increasing health care resource utilization.

We aim to externally validate the Ottawa subarachnoid hemorrhage (OSAH) clinical decision rule. This rule identifies patients with acute nontraumatic headache who require further investigation. We conducted a medical record review of all patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with headache from January 2011 to November 2013. Per the OSAH rule, patients with any of the following predictors require further investigation: age 40 years or older, neck pain, stiffness or limited flexion, loss of consciousness, onset during exertion, or thunderclap. The rule was applied following the OSAH rule criteria. Patients were followed up for repeat visits within 7 days of initial presentation. Data were electronically harvested from the electronic medical record and manually abstracted from individual patient charts using a standardized data abstraction form. Calibration between trained reviewers was performed periodically. A total of 5034 ED visits with acute headache were reviewed for eligibility. There were 1521 visits that met exclusion criteria, and 3059 had headache of gradual onset or time to maximal intensity greater than or equal to 1 hour. The rule was applied to 454 patients (9.0%). There were 9 cases of subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), yielding an incidence of 2.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0%-3.9%) in the eligible cohort. The sensitivity for SAH was 100% (95% CI, 62.9%-100%); specificity, 7.6% (95% CI, 5.4%-10.6%); positive predictive value, 2.1% (95% CI 1.0%-4.2%); and negative predictive value, 100% (95% CI, 87.4%-100%). The OSAH rule was 100% sensitive for SAH in the eligible cohort. However, its low specificity and applicability to only a minority of ED patients with headache (9%) reduce its potential impact on practice.

The pivotal RE-LY (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy) trial demonstrated that dabigatran (150 mg twice daily) was superior to warfarin in reducing thromboembolism with a similar risk of major bleeding [(1)][1]. Because renal dysfunction increases the risk of thromboembolism

Background Epinephrine is the drug of choice for the management of anaphylaxis, and fatal anaphylaxis is associated with delayed epinephrine administration. Data on adverse cardiovascular (CV) complications and epinephrine overdose are limited. Objective To compare rates of CV adverse events and epinephrine overdoses associated with anaphylaxis management between various routes of epinephrine administration among patients with anaphylaxis in the emergency department. Methods This was an observational cohort study from April 2008 to July 2012. Patients in the emergency department who met diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis were included. We collected demographics; route of epinephrine administration; trigger; overdose; and adverse CV events, including arrhythmia, cardiac ischemia, stroke, angina, and hypertension. Results The study cohort included 573 patients, of whom, 301 (57.6%) received at least 1 dose of epinephrine. A total of 362 doses of epinephrine were administered to 301 patients: 67.7% intramuscular (IM) autoinjector, 19.6% IM injection, 8.3% subcutaneous injection, 3.3% intravenous (IV) bolus, and 1.1% IV continuous infusion. There were 8 CV adverse events and 4 overdoses with 8 different patients. All the overdoses occurred when epinephrine was administered IV bolus. Adverse CV events were associated with 3 of 30 doses of IV bolus epinephrine compared with 4 of 316 doses of IM epinephrine (10% vs 1.3%; odds ratio 8.7 [95% CI, 1.8-40.7], P = .006). Similarly, overdose occurred with 4 of 30 doses of IV bolus epinephrine compared with 0 of 316 doses of IM epinephrine (13.3% vs 0%; odds ratio 61.3 [95% CI, 7.5 to infinity], P Conclusion The risk of overdose and adverse CV events is significantly higher with IV bolus epinephrine administration. Analysis of the data supports the safety of IM epinephrine and a need for extreme caution and further education about IV bolus epinephrine in anaphylaxis.

Background Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening allergic reaction that may require emergency medical system (EMS) transport. Fatal anaphylaxis is associated with delayed epinephrine administration. Patient outcome data to assess appropriateness of EMS epinephrine administration are sparse. Objectives The objectives of this study are to (1) determine the frequency of epinephrine administration in EMS-transported patients with allergic complaints, (2) identify predictors of epinephrine administration, and (3) determine frequency of emergency department (ED) epinephrine administration after EMS transport. Methods A cohort study was conducted from over 5 years. A total of 59187 EMS transports of an Advanced Life Support (ALS) ambulance service were studied. Results One hundred and three patient transports for allergic complaints were analyzed. Fifteen patients received EMS epinephrine, and epinephrine was recommended for 2 additional patients who refused, for a total of 17 (17%) patients for whom epinephrine was administered or recommended. Emergency medical system epinephrine administration or recommendation was associated with venom as a trigger (29% vs 8%; odds ratio [OR], 4.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-17.22; P = .013), respiratory symptoms (88% vs 52%; OR, 6.83; 95% CI, 1.47-31.71; P = .006), and fulfillment of anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria (82% vs 49%; OR, 3.50; 95% CI, 0.94-13.2; P = .0498). Four (4%) patients received epinephrine after ED arrival. Conclusion Low rates of epinephrine administration were observed. The association of EMS administration of epinephrine with respiratory symptoms, fulfillment of anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria, and low rate of additional epinephrine administration in the ED suggest that ALS EMS administered epinephrine based on symptom severity. Additional studies of EMS anaphylaxis management including ED management and outcomes are needed.

Delirium is acute disorder of attention and cognition. We conducted an observational study using a hospital-wide database to validate three delirium prediction models that were developed to predict prevalent delirium within the first day of hospitalization after ED visit.This was a retrospective cohort study at the academic medical center to evaluate the predictive ability of three previously developed prediction models for delirium from 2014 to 2017. We included patients aged 65 years and older who were hospitalized from ED. Nurses used the Delirium Observation Screening Scale (DOSS) twice daily while hospitalized. We extracted variables to examine the three prediction models with a positive DOSS screen within the first day of admission. The predictive ability was summarized using the area under the curve (AUC).We identified 2582 visits with a positive DOSS screen and 877 visits with a diagnosis of delirium from ICD9/10 codes among 12,082 encounters. The AUC of these prediction models ranged from 0.71 to 0.80 when predicting a positive DOSS screen, and 0.68 to 0.72 when predicting a ICD9/10 diagnosis of delirium. In our cohort, the delirium risk score which uses the cutoff of positive or negative predicted DOSS positive delirium with the AUC of 0.8 (p .0001). The model demonstrated the sensitivity and the specificity of 91.2 (95% CI 90.0-92.3) and 50.3 (95% CI 49.3-51.3).In this study, the delirium risk score had the highest predictive ability for prevalent delirium defined by a positive DOSS within the first day of hospitalization.

Background Intussusception is a predominantly pediatric diagnosis that is not well characterized among adults. Undiagnosed cases can result in significant morbidity, making early recognition important for clinicians. Study Objectives We describe the presentation, clinical management, disposition, and outcome of adult patients diagnosed with intussusception during a 13-year period. Methods A retrospective study of consecutive adult patients diagnosed with intussusception at a tertiary academic center was carried out from 1996 to 2008. Cases were identified using International Classification of Diseases, 9 th Revision codes and a document search engine. Data were abstracted in duplicate by two independent authors. Results Among 148 patients included in the study, the most common symptoms at presentation were abdominal pain (72%), nausea (49%), and vomiting (36%). Twenty percent were asymptomatic. Sixty percent of cases had an identifiable lead point. Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) (31%) had higher rates of abdominal pain (relative risk [RR] 5.7) and vomiting (RR 3.4), and were more likely to undergo surgical intervention (RR 1.8) than patients diagnosed elsewhere. There were 77 patients who underwent surgery within 1 month; patients presenting with abdominal pain (RR 2.2), nausea (RR 1.7), vomiting (RR 1.4), and bloody stool (RR 1.9) were more likely to undergo surgery. Conclusions Adult intussusception commonly presents with abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting; however, approximately 20% of cases are asymptomatic and seem to be diagnosed by incidental radiologic findings. Patients presenting to an ED with intussusception due to a mass as a lead point or in an ileocolonic location are likely to undergo surgical intervention.

Videotaped recordings of simulation-based performance may allow learners the opportunity to review, evaluate, and reflect upon their own performance.To determine the accuracy of resident performance self-assessment after a simulation-based encounter; compare low- and high-scoring residents' abilities to evaluate their performance; and determine if video-assisted performance review improves self-assessment accuracy.Emergency Medicine residents participated in a videotaped simulation-based assessment. Residents evaluated their performance immediately after completing simulated cases, and after reviewing the session's video. Self-ratings were compared to the faculty observers, and scores were divided based on the median.Seventeen residents participated, providing 270 self-ratings before, and 269 after, video review. Before video review, residents accurately graded their performance in 73.7% of the items. High- and low-scoring residents accurately self-assessed 83.9% and 62.2% of items, respectively. The odds of a high scorer accurately rating their own performance were 3.2 times that of a low scorer (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9-5.2, p0.001). After video review, resident self-assessments were accurate for 73.6% of the items. High scorers were accurate in their post-video self-assessment in 83.3% of the items, vs. 62.4% for low scorers. After video review, the odds of a high scorer accurately self-rating their performance were 3.0 times that of a low scorer (95% CI 2.1-4.1, p0.001).Residents' abilities to self-assess vary, and performance quality may influence self-assessment. Video review did not significantly increase self-assessment accuracy. Improving self-assessment skills may assist residents in identifying practice gaps, thereby allowing them to focus their energy toward filling that gap.

To evaluate the risk and presence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke, and examine the correlation of OSA with age, sex, ischemic stroke subtype, disability, and death, a prospective cohort study was conducted in all consecutive patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke between June 2007 and March 2008. Exclusion criteria were age18 years, refusal of consent for the study, and incomplete questionnaire. The Berlin Sleep Questionnaire was used to identify patients at high risk for OSA. A total of 174 patients with acute ischemic stroke were included; 130 (74.7%) had a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score ≥ 3 at dismissal, and 11 patients (6.3%) died within 1 month. The Berlin Sleep Questionnaire identified 105 patients (60.4%) at high risk for OSA, along with 7 patients (4%) with a previous diagnosis of OSA. Those with a previous diagnosis of OSA were more likely to die within the first month after stroke (relative risk, 5.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-20.1) compared with those without OSA. Patients at high risk for OSA did not demonstrate increased mortality at 30 days (P = 1.0). In multivariate analysis, after adjusting for age and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, previous diagnosis of OSA was an independent predictor of worse functional outcome, that is, worse mRS score at hospital discharge (P = .004). The mRS score was 1.2 points higher (adjusted R², 40%) in those with OSA. Our findings suggest that patients considered at high risk for ischemic stroke should be screened for OSA, the prevalence of which may be as high as 60%. Those with definitive diagnosis of OSA before stroke are at increased risk of death within the first month after an acute ischemic stroke.

Introduction Despite a relatively high frequency of appendix nonvisualization when using ultrasound to diagnose appendicitis, many studies either fail to report these results or inconsistently analyze outcomes. Objectives The objective of this study is to determine the most transparent and accurate way of reporting and analyzing ultrasound results for the diagnosis of appendicitis. Methods This was an observational cohort study of emergency department patients age 18 years or older who underwent right lower quadrant ultrasonography from September 2010 to October 2011. Patient characteristics, imaging, pathology, and follow-up data were analyzed. Test characteristics were calculated using conventional 2 × 2 contingency table analysis excluding inconclusive ultrasound results and an intention-to-diagnose approach with a 3 × 2 table. Results Sixty-five patients were included. Forty-four (68%) patients had a nonvisualized appendix resulting in an overall diagnostic yield of 32%. Twenty-one patients had a visualized appendix (14 [22%] negative and 7 [11%] positive for appendicitis). Using 2 × 2 contingency table analysis, sensitivity and specificity were 100%. Using the 3 × 2 table with and the intention-to-diagnose principle, sensitivity was 70% and specificity was 25%. Three (7%) of 44 patients with a nonvisualized appendix had appendicitis (likelihood ratio = 0.40). Discussion We suggest reporting ultrasound results using a 3 × 2 table (including nonvisualized findings) but using the traditional 2 × 2 type of analysis for test characteristic calculations. This approach allows for the determination of diagnostic yield and calculation of likelihood ratios when the appendix is not visualized. This approach to reporting should be considered for all types of diagnostic ultrasound studies.

Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening allergic reaction with a strong risk of recurrence.To assess risk factors associated with recurrent anaphylaxis-related emergency department (ED) visits within 1 year of an ED visit for anaphylaxis in a large observational cohort study.We used an administrative claims database to identify patients seen from 2008 through 2012 in the ED for anaphylaxis based on an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis code algorithm. Patients with at least 2 years of continuous enrollment in a health plan were included. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to determine associations with recurrence of anaphylaxis within 1 year.During the 5-year study period, 7,367 patients (median age, 42 years;18 years old, 23.3%) met the inclusion criteria. The most common anaphylaxis trigger was unspecified (56.2%), followed by food (25.3%), medication (14.6%), and venom (3.9%). Overall, 3.0% of patients had an additional anaphylaxis-related ED visit within 1 year (3.61 episodes per 100 patient-years). On multivariable analysis, risk factors associated with anaphylaxis recurrence were food trigger (odds ratio [OR], 2.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34-3.99), history of asthma (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.13-1.51), and intensive care unit admission at the index anaphylaxis event (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.41-2.69).In this contemporary cohort study, history of asthma, food trigger, and greater index anaphylaxis severity, as measured by intensive care unit admission, were associated with a higher likelihood of a recurrent anaphylaxis-related ED visit within 1 year.

Background Although the incidence of anaphylaxis appears to be increasing, trends in anaphylaxis-related health care utilization are not well understood. Objective To better understand the potential increasing health care burden, we analyzed the changes in anaphylaxis-related health care utilization, including emergency department (ED) discharges, observation stays, inpatient admissions, intensive care unit admissions, and endotracheal intubations. Methods We conducted an observational study examining outcomes of anaphylaxis-related ED visits between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2014. We analyzed administrative claims data from OptumLabs Data Warehouse, which includes more than 100 million Medicare Advantage and privately insured enrollees in the United States. We studied trends in the proportions of ED-related anaphylaxis visits based on demographic characteristics, triggers, and ED disposition for our study population. Results Among 56,212 anaphylaxis-related ED visits during a 10-year period, the proportion of patient observation/inpatient admissions increased by 37.6% ( P = .02), from 13.2% of anaphylaxis-related ED visits in 2005 to 18.2% in 2014. The proportion of patients admitted to the intensive care unit increased by 27.4% ( P = .001), from 4.5% in 2005 to 5.8% in 2014. Proportions of endotracheal intubation increased by 145.2% ( P Conclusions The increasing proportions of observation/inpatient admissions, intensive care unit admissions, and endotracheal intubations suggest an increase in anaphylaxis severity. Enhanced awareness of these trends among patients, practitioners, and the community is necessary to create effective strategies to prevent anaphylaxis and decrease associated adverse consequences.

We sought to examine the relationship of the QTc interval with mortality and functional outcome after acute ischemic stroke, and determine whether a threshold cutoff is present beyond which risk of death increases.The QTc interval was measured for all patients presenting to the emergency department. The outcomes were mortality at 90 days and functional outcome at hospital discharge. The cutoffs were determined plotting martingale residuals.Patients with a prolonged QTc interval were more likely to die within 90 days compared with patients without a prolonged interval (relative risk [RR] 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5-4.1; P.001). The estimated survival at 90 days was 70.5% and 87.1%, respectively. This association retained statistical significance after adjusting for age and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (RR 1.7; 95% CI 1.0-2.9; P = .043). Patients with a prolonged QTc interval were also more likely to have poor functional status compared with patients without a prolonged interval (odds ratio 1.8; 95% CI 1.2-3.0; P = .006). This association was not statistically significant after adjusting for age and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (odds ratio 1.2; 95% CI 0.7-2.4). The identified threshold cutoffs for increased risk of death at 90 days were 440 milliseconds for women and 438 milliseconds for men.There appears to be an increased risk of early death in patients with acute ischemic stroke and a prolonged QTc interval at the time of emergency department presentation. Prognosis appears to be worse with QTc intervals longer than 440 milliseconds in women and longer than 438 milliseconds in men.

Background Statins have been shown to improve the functional outcome of patients after an ischemic stroke. We hypothesized that daily statin intake improves functional outcome after an acute ischemic stroke in patients with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) less than or equal to 100 mg/dL. Methods This was a prospective cohort study during a 22-month period of patients presenting with an acute ischemic stroke and lipid profiles measured. The functional disability was determined using modified Rankin scale score (0-2 good outcome, 3-6 bad outcome) at discharge. Chi-square test for binary data and nonparametric tests for nonnormally distributed variables were used for analysis. Results Of 508 patients, 207 presented with an LDL of 100 mg/dL or less and were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in admission stroke severity (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS]; P = .18), age ( P = .31), and sex ( P = .06) between those taking statins and not taking statins. Patients with LDL less than or equal to 100 mg/dL and taking statins (n = 100) were significantly more likely to have a good functional outcome (odds ratio 1.91; 95% confidence interval 1.05-3.47) when compared with those not on the medication. After adjusting for age, sex, and NIHSS, statin intake still predicted a better functional outcome ( P Conclusion Daily statin intake appears to result in a better functional outcome after an ischemic stroke in patients with ideal LDL levels (≤100 mg/dL) before and after adjusting for age and stroke severity. Pleiotropic effects of statins may play a role in this.

Study objective We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of apneic oxygenation during emergency intubation. Methods We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid CENTRAL, and Scopus databases for randomized controlled trials and observational studies from 2006 until July 2016, without language restrictions. Gray literature, clinicaltrials.gov, and reference lists of articles were hand searched. We conducted a meta-analysis with random-effects models to evaluate first-pass success rates, incidence of hypoxemia, and lowest peri-intubation SpO 2 between apneic oxygenation and standard oxygenation cases. Results A total of 1,386 studies were screened and 77 selected for full-text review. A total of 14 studies were included for qualitative analysis, and 8 studies (1,837 patients) underwent quantitative analysis. In the meta-analysis of 8 studies (1,837 patients), apneic oxygenation was associated with decreased hypoxemia (odds ratio [OR] 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52 to 0.84), but was not associated with decreased severe hypoxemia (6 studies; 1,043 patients; OR 0.86; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.57) or life-threatening hypoxemia (5 studies; 1,003 patients; OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.55). Apneic oxygenation was associated with increased first-pass success rate (6 studies; 1,658 patients; OR 1.59; 95% CI 1.04 to 2.44) and increased lowest peri-intubation SpO 2 (6 studies; 1,043 patients; weighted mean difference 2.2%; 95% CI 0.8% to 3.6%). Conclusion In this meta-analysis, apneic oxygenation was associated with increased peri-intubation oxygen saturation, decreased rates of hypoxemia, and increased first-pass intubation success.

Background The rate and risk factors for recurrence of anaphylaxis are not well known. Objective To measure the rate and risk factors for recurrent anaphylaxis in a population-based cohort in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Methods We conducted a population-based cohort study using the Rochester Epidemiology Project, a comprehensive medical records linkage system, to obtain records of patients who presented to medical centers within the Olmsted County area with anaphylaxis from January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2010. We evaluated the rate and associations of risk factors with anaphylaxis recurrence. Results Among the 611 patients with anaphylaxis, 50 (8%) experienced a total of 60 recurrences within the 10-year period, resulting in a recurrence rate of 2.6 per 100 person-years. A history of atopic dermatitis (hazard ratio [HR], 5.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0–16.1; P = .001), presenting symptoms of cough (HR, 4.7; 95% CI, 2.1–10.7; P P P P = .02) was associated with a decreased risk of recurrence. Conclusion In this epidemiologic study, the rate of recurrence was 8% during the 10-year study period (recurrence rate of 2.6 per 100 person-years). Those with atopic dermatitis and mucocutaneous or respiratory symptoms were more likely to have a recurrent anaphylactic event. Our findings underscore the importance of early patient access to self-injectable epinephrine and referral to an allergist/immunologist for additional testing and education.

Background Studies have documented inconsistent emergency anaphylaxis care and low compliance with published guidelines. Objective To evaluate anaphylaxis management before and after implementation of an emergency department (ED) anaphylaxis order set and introduction of epinephrine autoinjectors, and to measure the effect on anaphylaxis guideline adherence. Methods A cohort study was conducted from April 29, 2008, to August 9, 2012. Adult patients in the ED who were diagnosed with anaphylaxis were included. ED management, disposition, self-injectable epinephrine prescriptions, allergy follow-up, and incidence of biphasic reactions were evaluated. Results The study included 202 patients. The median age of the patients was 45.3 years (interquartile range, 31.3-56.4 years); 139 (69%) were women. Patients who presented after order set implementation were more likely to be treated with epinephrine (51% vs 33%; odds ratio [OR] 2.05 [95% CI, 1.04-4.04]) and admitted to the ED observation unit (65% vs 44%; OR 2.38 [95% CI, 1.23-4.60]), and less likely to be dismissed home directly from ED (16% vs 29%, OR 0.47 [95% CI, 0.22-1.00]). Eleven patients (5%) had a biphasic reaction. Of these, 5 (46%) had the biphasic reaction in the ED observation unit; 1 patient was admitted to the intensive care unit. Six patients (55%) had reactions within 6 hours of initial symptom resolution, of whom 2 were admitted to the intensive care unit. Conclusions Significantly higher proportions of patients with anaphylaxis received epinephrine and were admitted to the ED observation unit after introduction of epinephrine autoinjectors and order set implementation. Slightly more than half of the biphasic reactions occurred within the recommended observation time of 4 to 6 hours. Analysis of these data suggests that the multifaceted approach to changing anaphylaxis management described here improved guideline adherence.

Study objective We assess the methodological quality and prognostic accuracy of clinical decision rules in emergency department (ED) syncope patients. Methods We searched 6 electronic databases, reviewed reference lists of included studies, and contacted content experts to identify articles for review. Studies that derived or validated clinical decision rules in ED syncope patients were included. Two reviewers independently screened records for relevance, selected studies for inclusion, assessed study quality, and abstracted data. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool diagnostic performance estimates across studies that derived or validated the same clinical decision rule. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed with the I 2 statistic, and subgroup hypotheses were tested with a test of interaction. Results We identified 18 eligible studies. Deficiencies in outcome (blinding) and interrater reliability assessment were the most common methodological weaknesses. Meta-analysis of the San Francisco Syncope Rule (sensitivity 86% [95% confidence interval {CI} 83% to 89%]; specificity 49% [95% CI 48% to 51%]) and the Osservatorio Epidemiologico sulla Sincope nel Lazio risk score (sensitivity 95% [95% CI 88% to 98%]; specificity 31% [95% CI 29% to 34%]). Subgroup analysis identified study design (prospective, diagnostic odds ratio 8.82 [95% CI 3.5 to 22] versus retrospective, diagnostic odds ratio 2.45 [95% CI 0.96 to 6.21]) and ECG determination (by evaluating physician, diagnostic odds ratio 25.5 [95% CI 4.41 to 148] versus researcher or cardiologist, diagnostic odds ratio 4 [95% CI 2.15 to 7.55]) as potential explanations for the variability in San Francisco Syncope Rule performance. Conclusion The methodological quality and prognostic accuracy of clinical decision rules for syncope are limited. Differences in study design and ECG interpretation may account for the variable prognostic performance of the San Francisco Syncope Rule when validated in different practice settings.