Search

Unlabelled: ABSTRACTObjective:There are currently no widely used guidelines to determine which older patients with acute respiratory conditions require hospital admission. This study assessed the need for clinical decision rules to help determine whether hospital admission is required for patients over 50 years for three common respiratory conditions: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart failure (HF), and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP)., Design: Postal survey., Setting: Emergency physicians (EPs) from the United States, Canada, and Australasia., Participants: A random sample of EPs from the United States, Canada, and Australasia., Interventions: A modified Dillman technique with a prenotification letter and up to three postal surveys., Main Outcomes: EP opinions regarding the need for and willingness to use clinical decision rules for emergency department (ED) patients over 50 years with COPD, HF, or CAP to predict hospital admission. We assessed the required sensitivity of each rule for return ED visit or death within 14 days., Results: A total of 801 responses from 1,493 surveys were received, with response rates of 55%, 60%, and 46% for Australasia, Canada, and the United States, respectively. Over 90% of EPs reported that they would consider using clinical decision rules for HF, CAP, and COPD. The median required sensitivity for death within 14 days was 97 to 98% for all conditions., Conclusions: EPs are likely to adopt highly sensitive clinical decision rules to predict the need for hospital admission for patients over 50 years with COPD, HF, or CAP.

Background: Clinical decision rules can benefit clinicians, patients, and health systems, but they involve considerable up-front development costs and must be acceptable to the target audience. No existing instrument measures the acceptability of a rule. The current study validated such an instrument., Methods: The authors administered the Ottawa Acceptability of Decision Rules Instrument (OADRI) via postal survey to emergency physicians from 4 regions (Australasia, Canada, United Kingdom, and United States), in the context of 2 recently developed rules, the Canadian C-Spine Rule (C-Spine) and the Canadian CT Head Rule (CT-Head). Construct validity of the 12-item instrument was evaluated by hypothesis testing., Results: As predicted by a priori hypotheses, OADRI scores were 1) higher among rule users than nonusers, 2) higher among those using the rule ''all of the time'' v. ''most of the time'' v. ''some of the time,'' and 3) higher among rule nonusers who would consider using a rule v. those who would not. We also examined explicit reasons given by respondents who said they would not use these rules. Items in the OADRI accounted for 85.5% (C- Spine) and 90.2% (CT-Head) of the reasons given for not considering a rule acceptable., Conclusions: The OADRI is a simple, 12-item instrument that evaluates rule acceptability among clinicians. Potential uses include comparing multiple ''protorules'' during development, examining acceptability of a rule to a new audience prior to implementation, indicating barriers to rule use addressable by knowledge translation interventions, and potentially serving as a proxy measure for future rule use.