Search

Introduction: International rates of hospitalization for atrial fibrillation and flutter (AFF) from the emergency department (ED) vary widely without clear evidence to guide the identification of high-risk patients requiring inpatient management. We sought to determine (1) variation in hospital admission and (2) modifiable factors associated with hospitalization of AFF patients within a U.S. integrated health system. Methods: This multicenter prospective observational study of health plan members with symptomatic AFF was conducted using convenience sampling in 7 urban community EDs from 05/2011 to 08/2012. Prospective data collection included presenting symptoms, characteristics of atrial dysrhythmia, ED physician impression of hemodynamic instability, comorbid diagnoses, ED management, and ED discharge rhythm. All centers had full-time on-call cardiology consultation available. Additional variables were extracted from the electronic health record. We identified factors associated with hospitalization and included predictors in a multivariate Poisson Generalized Estimating Equations regression model to estimate adjusted relative risks while accounting for clustering by physician. Results: Among 1,942 eligible AFF patients, 1,074 (55.3%) were discharged home and 868 (44.7%) were hospitalized. Hospitalization rates ranged from 37.4% to 60.4% across medical centers. After adjustment, modifiable factors associated with increased hospital admission from the ED included non-sinus rhythm at ED discharge, no attempted cardioversion, and heart rate reduction. Discussion: Within an integrated health system, we found significant variation in AFF hospitalization rates and identified several modifiable factors associated with hospital admission. Standardizing treatment goals that specifically address best practices for ED rate reduction and rhythm control may reduce hospitalizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Although they infrequently lead to management changing diagnoses, chest x-rays (CXRs) are the most commonly ordered imaging study in blunt trauma evaluation. Objectives: To determine: 1) the reasons physicians order chest X-ray studies (CXRs) in blunt trauma assessments; 2) what injuries they expect CXRs to reveal; and 3) whether physicians can accurately predict low likelihood of injury on CXR. Methods: At a Level I Trauma Center, we asked resident and attending physicians treating adult blunt trauma patients: 1) the primary reason(s) for getting CXRs; 2) what, if any, significant intrathoracic injuries (SITI) they expected CXRs to reveal; and 3) the likelihood of these injuries. An expert panel defined SITI as two or more rib fractures, sternal fracture, pulmonary contusion, pneumothorax, hemothorax, or aortic injury on official CXR readings. Results: There were 484 patient encounters analyzed—65% of participating physicians were residents and 35% were attendings; 16 (3.3%) patients had SITI. The most common reasons for ordering CXRs were: “enough concern for significant injury” (62.9%) and belief that CXR is a “standard part of trauma work-up” (24.8%). Residents were more likely than attendings to cite “standard trauma work-up” (mean difference = 13.5%, p = 0.003). When physicians estimated a < 10% likelihood of SITI on CXR, 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0–4.1%) of patients had SITI; when they predicted a 10–25% likelihood, 5.7% (95% CI 1.2–15.7%) had SITI; and when they predicted a > 25% likelihood, 9.1% (95% CI 3.0–20.0%) had SITI. Conclusions: Physicians order CXRs in blunt trauma patients because they expect to find injuries and believe that CXRs are part of a “standard” work-up. Providers commonly do not expect CXRs to reveal SITI. When providers estimated low likelihood of SITI, the rate of SITI was very low. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]