Search

Introduction: Acute atrial fibrillation or flutter (AFF) is the most common dysrhythmia managed in the emergency department (ED). A key component of managing AFF in the ED is the prevention of stroke. Predictive indices (e.g., CHADS2 , HAS-BLED) should be used to assess each patient’s risk of stroke and bleeding to determine the appropriate anticoagulation therapy. The frequency of use of these predictive indices in the emergency department to determine appropriate anticoagulation therapy remains unclear. This systematic review is designed to examine the use of risk scores in the ED to determine the management of patients presenting to the ED for atrial fibrillation and flutter. Methods: An extensive search of eight electronic databases and grey literature was conducted. Quasi-experimental studies were eligible for inclusion. Studies had to report on the ED management of adult patients presenting with AFF to be included. Two independent reviewers judged the relevance, inclusion, and risk of bias of the studies. Individual and pooled statistics were calculated as odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI using a random effects model and heterogeneity (I2) was reported. Results: From 1,648 citations, 37 studies were included in this review. Heterogeneity was very high, precluding pooling. Only one of the included studies documented the use of CHADS2 scores by attending physicians; while no studies documented the use of HAS-BLED. There was variability in the ED management strategies of AFF. The utilization of rhythm control in the treatment of AFF ranged considerable (OR: 0.04-9.84) in comparison to rate control. Of the 17 studies reporting cardioversion approaches, chemical (9 {53%}) cardioversion was the most common management strategy of AFF. Conclusion: Our results suggests that either few physicians are documenting stroke risk scores in adult patients with AFF, or that research studies assessing ED management of AFF are not reporting scores documented by the attending physicians. Future research needs to examine the use of stroke risk scores to determine the optimal and appropriate care for patients.

Introduction: Educational interventions driven by the needs of users can help move evidence into practice. This study considered the perceptions of patients and knowledge users in the design of an educational intervention in acute asthma directed from Emergency Departments (EDs). Methods: A mixed methods design with two phases was used. In phase I, convenience samples of asthmatics presenting to the University of Alberta Hospital ED and primary care providers (PCPs) from Edmonton were invited to participate in a survey. Perceptions with respect to: a) an ideal local opinion leader (OL) in ambulatory asthma care; and b) content, style and delivery methods of OL educational interventions in acute asthma were collected. In phase II, focus-group discussions were conducted to further explore preferences and expectations for such interventions; self-perceived barriers and facilitators for implementation were assessed. Results: Overall, 54 patients completed the survey; 39% preferred receiving guidance from a Respirologist, 44% during their ED visit and 56% through individual discussions. In addition, 55% expressed interest in having PCP follow-up within a week of discharge. A Respirologist was identified as an OL in ambulatory asthma by 59% of the 39 responding PCPs. All expressed interest in receiving notification of their patients’ ED presentation, most within a week and including diagnosis and ED/post ED-treatment. Personalized and guideline-based recommendations were considered to be the ideal content by the majority; 39% requested this guidance through an educational pamphlet faxed to their offices. In the focus groups, patients and PCPs recognized the importance of health professional liaisons in the ED to PCP transition of care; patient anxiety and time constraints were identified as potential barriers for ED-educational information uptake and proper post-ED follow-up, respectively. Conclusion: Messages arising from patients and PCPs help tailoring study interventions to meet local needs and expectations. Overall, patients and physicians are seeking ways to mitigate problems with transitions in care. This contact with the practice environment also facilitates the identification of potential determinants to implementation and knowledge uptake.

Introduction: Some non-urgent/low-acuity Emergency Department (ED) presentations are considered convenience visits and potentially avoidable with improved access to primary care services. This study surveyed patients who presented to the ED and explored their self-reported reasons and barriers for not being connected to a primary care provider (PCP). Methods: Patients aged 17 years and older were randomly selected from electronic registration records at three urban EDs in Edmonton, Alberta (AB), Canada. Following initial triage, stabilization, and verbal informed consent, patients completed a 47-item questionnaire. Data from the survey were cross-referenced to a minimal patient dataset consisting of ED and demographic information. The questionnaire collected information on patient characteristics, their connection to a PCP, and patients' reasons for not having a PCP. Results: Of the 2144 eligible patients, 1408 (65.7%) surveys were returned and 1402 (65.4%) were completed. The majority of patients (74.4%) presenting to the ED reported having a family physician; however, the ‘closeness’ of the connection to their family physician varied greatly among ED patients with the most recent family physician visit ranging from 1 hour before ED presentation to 45 years prior. Approximately 25% of low acuity ED patients reported no connection with a family physician. Reasons for a lack of PCP connection included: prior physician retired, left, or died (19.8%), they had never tried to find one (19.2%), they had recently moved to Alberta (18.0%), and they were unable to find one (16.5%). Conclusion: A surprisingly high proportion of ED patients (25.6%) have no identified PCP. Patients had a variety of reasons for not having a family physician. These need to be understood and addressed in order for primary care access to successfully contribute to diverting non-urgent, low acuity presentations from the ED.