Search

ObjectivesWith the 'teach-back' method, patients or carers repeat back what they understand, so that professionals can confirm comprehension and correct misunderstandings. The effectiveness of teach-back has been underexamined, particularly for older patients discharged from the emergency department (ED). We aimed to determine whether teach-back would reduce ED revisits and whether it would increase patients’ retention of discharge instructions, improve self-management at home and increase satisfaction with the provision of instructions.MethodsA nonrandomised pre–post pilot evaluation in the ED of one Dutch academic hospital including patients discharged from the ED receiving standard discharge care (pre) and teach-back (post). Primary outcomes were ED-revisits within 7 days and within 8–30 days postdischarge. Secondary outcomes for a subsample of older adults were retention of instructions, self-management 72 hours after discharge and satisfaction with the provision of discharge instructions.ResultsA total of 648 patients were included, 154 were older adults. ED revisits within 7 days and within 8–30 days were lower in the teach-back group compared with those receiving standard discharge care: adjusted odds ratios (AORs) of 0.23 (95% CI 0.05 to 1.07) and 0.42 (95% CI 0.14 to 1.33), respectively. Participants in the teach-back group had an increased likelihood of full knowledge retention on information related to their ED diagnosis and treatment (AOR 2.19; 95% CI 1.01 to 4.75; p=0.048), medication (AOR 14.89; 95% CI 4.12 to 53.85; p>0.001) and follow-up appointments (AOR 3.86; 95% CI 1.33 to 10.19; p=0.012). Use of teach-back was not significantly associated with improved self-management and higher satisfaction with discharge instructions. Discharge conversations were generally shorter for participants receiving teach-back.ConclusionsDischarging patients from the ED with a relatively simple and feasible teach-back method can contribute to safer and better transitional care from the ED to home.

BackgroundAppropriate interpretation of vital signs is essential for risk stratification in the emergency department (ED) but may change with advancing age. In several guidelines, risk scores such as the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) and Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) scores, commonly used in emergency medicine practice (as well as critical care) specify a single cut-off or threshold for each of the commonly measured vital signs. Although a single cut-off may be convenient, it is unknown whether a single cut-off for vital signs truly exists and if the association between vital signs and in-hospital mortality differs per age-category.AimsTo assess the association between initial vital signs and case-mix adjusted in-hospital mortality in different age categories.MethodsObservational multicentre cohort study using the Netherlands Emergency Department Evaluation Database (NEED) in which consecutive ED patients ≥18 years were included between 1 January 2017 and 12 January 2020. The association between vital signs and case-mix adjusted mortality were assessed in three age categories (18-65; 66-80; >80 years) using multivariable logistic regression. Vital signs were each divided into five to six categories, for example, systolic blood pressure (SBP) categories (≤80, 81–100, 101–120, 121–140, >140 mm Hg).ResultsWe included 101 416 patients of whom 2374 (2.3%) died. Adjusted ORs for mortality increased gradually with decreasing SBP and decreasing peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2). Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) had quasi-U-shaped associations with mortality. Mortality did not increase for temperatures anywhere in the range between 35.5°C and 42.0°C, with a single cut-off around 35.5°C below which mortality increased. Single cut-offs were also found for MAP <70 mm Hg and respiratory rate >22/min. For all vital signs, older patients had larger increases in absolute mortality compared with younger patients.ConclusionFor SBP, DBP, SpO2and HR, no single cut-off existed. The impact of changing vital sign categories on prognosis was larger in older patients. Our results have implications for the interpretation of vital signs in existing risk stratification tools and acute care guidelines.