Search

Introduction: Early recognition of elevated lactate levels in sepsis may hasten the detection of those patients eligible for aggressive resuscitation. Point-of-care (POC) testing is now increasingly available for use in the emergency department (ED). We examined the accuracy and time-saving effect of a handheld POC device for the measurement of fingertip and whole blood lactate as compared with reference laboratory testing in critically ill ED patients.Methods: A convenience sample of adult ED patients receiving serum lactate testing was prospectively enrolled at an urban, tertiary care US hospital. Consenting patients underwent fingertip POC lactate measurement with a portable device and simultaneous whole blood sampling for analysis by both the POC device and standard laboratory analyzer (‘‘reference method’’). Lactate measurements were compared by intraclass correlation (ICC) and Bland and Altman plots. Differences in time to test result were compared by paired t test.Results: Twenty-four patients, 19 (79%) with sepsis and 21 (88%) with lactate levels below 4 mmol/L, were included from April 2005 to May 2005. Fingertip POC and whole blood POC lactate measurements each correlated tightly with the reference method (ICC ¼ 0.90 and ICC ¼ 0.92, respectively). Mean time between obtaining fingertip lactate samples and whole blood reference lactate samples was 8 6 13 minutes. Mean time between obtaining POC and reference laboratory lactate results was 65 minutes (95% confidence interval, 30–103).Conclusion: Fingertip POC lactate measurement is an accurate method to determine lactate levels in infected ED patients with normal or modestly elevated lactate values and significantly decreases time to test results. These findings should be verified in a larger, more critically ill, ED population. [West J Emerg Med. 2013;14(1):58-62.]

Introduction: Triage of patients is critical to patient safety, yet no clear information exists as to the utility of initial vital signs in identifying critically ill older emergency department (ED) patients. The objective of this study is to evaluate a set of initial vital sign thresholds as predictors of severe illness and injury among older adults presenting to the ED.Methods: We reviewed all visits by patients aged 75 and older seen during 2007 at an academic ED serving a large community of older adults. Patients’ charts were abstracted for demographic and clinical information including vital signs, via automated electronic methods. We used bivariate analysis to investigate the relationship between vital sign abnormalities and severe illness or injury, defined as intensive care unit (ICU) admission or ED death. In addition, we calculated likelihood ratios for normal and abnormal vital signs in predicting severe illness or injury.Results: 4,873 visits by patients aged 75 and above were made to the ED during 2007, and of these 3,848 had a complete set of triage vital signs. For these elderly patients, the sensitivity and specificity of an abnormal vital sign taken at triage for predicting death or admission to an ICU were 73% (66,81) and 50% (48,52) respectively (positive likelihood ratio 1.47 (1.30,1.60); negative likelihood ratio 0.54 (0.30,0.60).Conclusion: Emergency provider assessment and triage scores that rely primarily on initial vital signs are likely to miss a substantial portion of critically ill older adults. [West J Emerg Med. 2013;14(5):453–460.]

BackgroundPrescription opioid misuse in the United States is a devastating public health crisis; many chronic opioid users were originally prescribed this class of medication for acute pain. Video narrative–enhanced risk communication may improve patient outcomes, such as knowledge of opioid risk and opioid use behaviors after an episode of acute pain. ObjectiveOur objective is to assess the effect of probabilistic and narrative-enhanced opioid risk communication on patient-reported outcomes, including knowledge, opioid use, and patient preferences, for patients who present to emergency departments with back pain and kidney stone pain. MethodsThis is a multisite randomized controlled trial. Patients presenting to the acute care facilities of four geographically and ethnically diverse US hospital centers with acute renal colic pain or musculoskeletal back and/or neck pain are eligible for this randomized controlled trial. A control group of patients receiving general risk information is compared to two intervention groups: one receiving the risk information sheet plus an individualized, visual probabilistic Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) and another receiving the risk information sheet plus a video narrative–enhanced probabilistic ORT. We will study the effect of probabilistic and narrative-enhanced opioid risk communication on the following: risk awareness and recall at 14 days postenrollment, reduced use or preferences for opioids after the emergency department episode, and alignment with patient preference and provider prescription. To assess these outcomes, we administer baseline patient surveys during acute care admission and follow-up surveys at predetermined times during the 3 months after discharge. ResultsA total of 1302 patients were enrolled over 24 months. The mean age of the participants was 40 years (SD 14), 692 out of 1302 (53.15%) were female, 556 out of 1302 (42.70%) were White, 498 out of 1302 (38.25%) were Black, 1002 out of 1302 (76.96%) had back pain, and 334 out of 1302 (25.65%) were at medium or high risk. Demographics and ORT scores were equally distributed across arms. ConclusionsThis study seeks to assess the potential clinical role of narrative-enhanced, risk-informed communication for acute pain management in acute care settings. This paper outlines the protocol used to implement the study and highlights crucial methodological, statistical, and stakeholder involvement as well as dissemination considerations. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03134092; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03134092 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/19496

Objective: To determine the association between age and analgesia for emergency department (ED) patients with abdominal or back pain.Methods: Using a fully electronic medical record, we performed a retrospective cohort study of adults presenting with abdominal or back pain to two urban EDs. To assess differences in analgesia administration and time to analgesia between age groups, we used chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis test respectively. To adjust for potential confounders, we used a generalized linear model with log link and Gaussian error.Results: Of 24,752 subjects (mean age 42 years, 65% female, 69% black, mean triage pain score 7.5), the majority (76%) had abdominal pain and 61% received analgesia. The ≥80 years group (n=722; 3%), compared to the 65-79 years group (n=2,080; 8%) and to the (n=21,950; 89%), was more often female (71 vs. 61 vs. 65%), black (72 vs. 65 vs. 69%), and had a lower mean pain score (6.6 vs. 7.1 vs. 7.6). Both older groups were less likely to receive any analgesia (48 vs. 59 vs. 62%, p

Objectives: In many academic emergency departments (ED), physicians are asked to record clinical data for research that may be time consuming and distracting from patient care. We hypothesized that non-medical research assistants (RAs) could obtain historical information from patients with acute abdominal pain as accurately as physicians.Methods: Prospective comparative study conducted in an academic ED of 29 RAs to 32 resident physicians (RPs) to assess inter-rater reliability in obtaining historical information in abdominal pain patients. Historical features were independently recorded on standardized data forms by a RA and RP blinded to each others’ answers. Discrepancies were resolved by a third person (RA) who asked the patient to state the correct answer on a third questionnaire, constituting the “criterion standard.” Inter-rater reliability was assessed using kappa statistics (κ) and percent crude agreement (CrA).Results: Sixty-five patients were enrolled (mean age 43). Of 43 historical variables assessed, the median agreement was moderate (κ 0.59 [Interquartile range 0.37-0.69]; CrA 85.9%) and varied across data categories: initial pain location (κ 0.61 [0.59-0.73]; CrA 87.7%), current pain location (κ 0.60 [0.47-0.67]; CrA 82.8%), past medical history (κ 0.60 [0.48-0.74]; CrA 93.8%), associated symptoms (κ 0.38 [0.37-0.74]; CrA 87.7%), and aggravating/alleviating factors (κ 0.09 [-0.01-0.21]; CrA 61.5%). When there was disagreement between the RP and the RA, the RA more often agreed with the criterion standard (64% [55-71%]) than the RP (36% [29-45%]).Conclusion: Non-medical research assistants who focus on clinical research are often more accurate than physicians, who may be distracted by patient care responsibilities, at obtaining historical information from ED patients with abdominal pain.[WestJEM. 2009;10:30-36.]

Background: Previous studies have demonstrated racial disparities in opioid prescribing in emergency departments and after surgical procedures. Orthopaedic surgeons account for a large proportion of dispensed opioid prescriptions, yet there are few data investigating whether racial or ethnic disparities exist in opioid dispensing after orthopaedic procedures. Questions/purposes: (1) Are Black, Hispanic or Latino, or Asian or Pacific Islander (PI) patients less likely than non-Hispanic White patients to receive an opioid prescription after an orthopaedic procedure in an academic United States health system? (2) Of the patients who do receive a postoperative opioid prescription, do Black, Hispanic or Latino, or Asian or PI patients receive a lower analgesic dose than non-Hispanic White patients when analyzed by type of procedure performed? Methods: Between January 2017 and March 2021, 60,782 patients underwent an orthopaedic surgical procedure at one of the six Penn Medicine healthcare system hospitals. Of these patients, we considered patients who had not been prescribed an opioid within 1 year eligible for the study, resulting in 61% (36,854) of patients. A total of 40% (24,106) of patients were excluded because they did not undergo one of the top eight most-common orthopaedic procedures studied or their procedure was not performed by a Penn Medicine faculty member. Missing data consisted of 382 patients who had no race or ethnicity listed in their record or declined to provide a race or ethnicity; these patients were excluded. This left 12,366 patients for analysis. Sixty-five percent (8076) of patients identified as non-Hispanic White, 27% (3289) identified as Black, 3% (372) identified as Hispanic or Latino, 3% (318) identified as Asian or PI, and 3% (311) identified as another race ("other"). Prescription dosages were converted to total morphine milligram equivalents for analysis. Statistical differences in receipt of a postoperative opioid prescription were assessed with multivariate logistic regression models within procedure, adjusted for age, gender, and type of healthcare insurance. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to assess for differences in the total morphine milligram equivalent dosage of the prescription, stratified by procedure. Results: Almost all patients (95% [11,770 of 12,366]) received an opioid prescription. After risk adjustment, we found no differences in the odds of Black (odds ratio 0.94 [95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.15]; p = 0.68), Hispanic or Latino (OR 0.75 [95% CI 0.47 to 1.20]; p = 0.18), Asian or PI (OR 1.00 [95% CI 0.58 to 1.74]; p = 0.96), or other-race patients (OR 1.33 [95% CI 0.72 to 2.47]; p = 0.26) receiving a postoperative opioid prescription compared with non-Hispanic White patients. There were no race or ethnicity differences in the median morphine milligram equivalent dose of postoperative opioid analgesics prescribed (p > 0.1 for all eight procedures) based on procedure. Conclusion: In this academic health system, we did not find any differences in opioid prescribing after common orthopaedic procedures by patient race or ethnicity. A potential explanation is the use of surgical pathways in our orthopaedic department. Formal standardized opioid prescribing guidelines may reduce variability in opioid prescribing. Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]