Reduction in observation unit length of stay with coronary computed tomography angiography depends on time of emergency department presentation

The Changing Role of Chest Pain in the Emergency Department Observation Unit

BACKGROUND

This study objective was to describe changes in the utilization of a protocol-driven emergency department observation unit (EDOU) for chest pain over time.

METHODS

This is a retrospective serial cross-sectional study of data from a clinical data warehouse of a single integrated healthcare system. We estimated long-term trends (2009-2019) in EDOU visits at 4 system hospitals, using monthly proportions as the main outcome, and month of visit as the exposure variable, accounting for age and sex. Rate changes associated with compulsory use of the History, EKG, Age, Risk factors, Troponin (HEART) score in 2016 were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 83,168 EDOU admissions among 1.3 million ED visits during the study interval, with an average admission rate of 5.9% of ED visits. The most common conditions were chest pain (41.2%), transient ischemic attack (7.8%), dehydration (6.3%), syncope (5.8%), and abdominal pain (5.2%). In each hospital, there was a temporal annual decline in the proportion of EDOU visits for chest pain protocols ranging from -7.9% to -2.8%, an average rate of -3.3% per year (95% CI, -4.6% to -2.0%) or a 54% (from 54% to 25%) relative decline in over the 11-year study interval. This decline was significantly steeper in younger middle-aged patients (ages 39-49). The HEART score intervention had a small impact on baseline decline of -3.1% at the 2 intervention hospitals, reducing it by -1.5% (95% CI, -2.2% to -0.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Utilization of the EDOU for chest pain decreased over time, with corresponding increases in other conditions. This decline preceded the introduction of the HEART score.

Hospitalisation in short-stay units for adults with internal medicine diseases and conditions

BACKGROUND

Short-stay units are hospital units that provide short-term care for selected patients. Studies have indicated that short-stay units might reduce admission rates, time of hospital stays, hospital readmissions and expenditure without compromising the quality of care. Short-stay units are often defined by a target patient category, a target function, and a target time frame. Hypothetically, short-stay units could be established as part of any department, but this review focuses on short-stay units that provide care for participants with internal medicine diseases and conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess beneficial and harmful effects of short-stay unit hospitalisation compared with usual care in people with internal medicine diseases and conditions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two trials registers up to 13 December 2017 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We also searched several grey literature sources and performed a forward citation search for included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials and cluster-randomised trials, comparing hospitalisation in a short-stay unit with usual care (hospitalisation in a traditional hospital ward or other services). We defined a short-stay unit to be a hospital ward where the targeted length of stay in hospital for patients was five days or less. We included both multipurpose and specialised short-stay units. Participants were adults admitted to hospital with an internal medicine disease or condition. We excluded surgical, obstetric, psychiatric, gynaecological, and ambulatory participants. Trials were included irrespective of publication status, date, and language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included trial. We measured intervention effect sizes by meta-analyses for two primary outcomes, mortality and serious adverse events, and one secondary outcome, hospital readmission. We narratively reported the following important outcomes: quality of life, activities of daily living, non-serious adverse events, and costs. We used risk ratio differences of 15% for mortality and of 20% for serious adverse events for minimal relevant clinical consideration. We rated the certainty of the evidence and the strength of recommendations of the outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 records reporting on 14 randomised trials with a total of 2872 participants. One trial was ongoing. Thirteen trials evaluated short-stay unit hospitalisation for six specific conditions (acute decompensated heart failure (one trial), asthma (one trial), atrial fibrillation (one trial), chest pain (seven trials), syncope (two trials), and transient ischaemic attack (one trial)) and one trial investigated participants presenting with miscellaneous internal medicine disease and conditions. The components of the intervention differed among the trials as dictated by the trial participants' condition. All included trials were at high risk of bias.The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was very low. Consequently, it is uncertain whether hospitalisation in short-stay units compared with usual care reduces mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.15) 5 trials (seven additional trials reporting on 1299 participants reported no deaths in either group)); serious adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.54; 7 trials (one additional trial with 108 participants reported no serious adverse events in either group)), and hospital readmission (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.19, 8 trials (one additional trial with 424 participants did not report results for participants)). There was not enough information to confirm or refute that short-stay unit hospitalisation had relevant effects on quality of life, activities of daily living, non-serious adverse events, and costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the quantity and the certainty of the evidence was very low. Consequently, it is uncertain whether there are any beneficial or harmful effects of short-stay unit hospitalisation for adults with internal medicine diseases and conditions - more trials comparing the effects of short-stay units with usual care are needed. Such trials ought to be conducted with low risk of bias and low risks of random errors to improve the overall confidence in the evidence.

Better safe than sorry? Frequent attendance in a hospital emergency department: an exploratory study

Introduction

Pain accounts for the majority of attendances to the Emergency Department (ED), with insufficient alleviation of symptoms resulting in repeated attendance. People who frequently attend the ED are typically considered to be psychologically and socially vulnerable in addition to experiencing health difficulties. This service development study was commissioned to identify the defining characteristics and unmet needs of frequent attenders (FAs) in a UK acute district general hospital ED, with a view to developing strategies to meet the needs of this group.

Methods

A mixed-methods multi-pronged exploratory approach was used, involving staff interviews, focus groups, business data and case note analysis.

Results

Findings reflect an absence of a coherent approach to meeting the needs of FAs in the ED, especially those experiencing pain. FAs to this ED tend to be vulnerable, complex and report significant worry and anxiety. Elevated anxiety on the part of the patient may be contributing to a 'better safe than sorry' culture within the ED and is reported to bear some influence on the clinical decision-making process.

Discussion

It is recommended that a systemic approach is taken to improve the quality and accessibility of individualised care plans, provision of patient education, psychological care and implementation of policies and procedures. Change on an organisational level is likely to improve working culture, staff satisfaction and staff relationships with this vulnerable group of patients. A structured care pathway and supportive changes are likely to lead to economic benefits. Further research should build on findings to implement and test the efficacy of these interventions.