Time to analgesia for care delivered by nurse practitioners in the emergency department: A retrospective chart audit

Objectives To evaluate quality of care delivered to patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with pain and managed by emergency nurse practitioners by measuring: 1) Evaluate time to analgesia from initial presentation 2) Evaluate time from being seen to next analgesia 3) Pain score documentation Background The delivery of quality care in the emergency department (ED) is emerging as one of the most important service indicators being measured by health services. Emergency nurse practitioner services are designed to improve timely, quality care for patients. One of the goals of quality emergency care is the timely and effective delivery of analgesia for patients. Timely analgesia is an important indicator of ED service performance. Methods A retrospective explicit chart review of 128 consecutive patients with pain and managed by emergency nurse practitioners was conducted. Data collected included demographics, presenting complaint, pain scores, and time to first dose of analgesia. Patients were identified from the ED Patient Information System (Cerner log) and data were extracted from electronic medical records Results Pain scores were documented in 67 (52.3%; 95% CI: 43.3-61.2) patients. The median time to analgesia from presentation was 60.5 (IQR 30-87) minutes, with 34 (26.6%; 95% CI: 19.1-35.1) patients receiving analgesia within 30 minutes of presentation to hospital. There were 22 (17.2%; 95% CI: 11.1-24.9) patients who received analgesia prior to assessment by a nurse practitioner. Among patients that received analgesia after assessment by a nurse practitioner, the median time to analgesia after assessment was 25 (IQR 12-50) minutes, with 65 (61.3%; 95% CI: 51.4-70.6) patients receiving analgesia within 30 minutes of assessment. Conclusions The majority of patients assessed by nurse practitioners received analgesia within 30 minutes after assessment. However, opportunities for substantial improvement in such times along with documentation of pain scores were identified and will be targeted in future research.

A comparative analysis of risk stratification tools for emergency department patients with chest pain

Background: Appropriate disposition of emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain is dependent on clinical evaluation of risk. A number of chest pain risk stratification tools have been proposed. The aim of this study was to compare the predictive performance for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) using risk assessment tools from the National Heart Foundation of Australia (HFA), the Goldman risk score and the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction risk score (TIMI RS). Methods: This prospective observational study evaluated ED patients aged ≥30 years with non-traumatic chest pain for which no definitive non-ischemic cause was found. Data collected included demographic and clinical information, investigation findings and occurrence of MACE by 30 days. The outcome of interest was the comparative predictive performance of the risk tools for MACE at 30 days, as analyzed by receiver operator curves (ROC). Results: Two hundred eighty-one patients were studied; the rate of MACE was 14.1%. Area under the curve (AUC) of the HFA, TIMI RS and Goldman tools for the endpoint of MACE was 0.54, 0.71 and 0.67, respectively, with the difference between the tools in predictive ability for MACE being highly significant [chi2 (3) = 67.21, N = 276, p < 0.0001]. Conclusion: The TIMI RS and Goldman tools performed better than the HFA in this undifferentiated ED chest pain population, but selection of cutoffs balancing sensitivity and specificity was problematic. There is an urgent need for validated risk stratification tools specific for the ED chest pain population.

A 2-hour diagnostic protocol for possible cardiac chest pain in the emergency department: A randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE Patients with chest pain represent a high health care burden, but it may be possible to identify a patient group with a low short-term risk of adverse cardiac events who are suitable for early discharge. OBJECTIVE To compare the effectiveness of a rapid diagnostic pathway with a standard-care diagnostic pathway for the assessment of patients with possible cardiac chest pain in a usual clinical practice setting. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A single-center, randomized parallel-group trial with blinded outcome assessments was conducted in an academic general and tertiary hospital. Participants included adults with acute chest pain consistent with acute coronary syndrome for whom the attending physician planned further observation and troponin testing. Patient recruitment occurred from October 11, 2010, to July 4, 2012, with a 30-day follow-up. INTERVENTIONS An experimental pathway using an accelerated diagnostic protocol (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction score, 0; electrocardiography; and 0- and 2-hour troponin tests) or a standard-care pathway (troponin test on arrival at hospital, prolonged observation, and a second troponin test 6-12 hours after onset of pain) serving as the control. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Discharge from the hospital within 6 hours without a major adverse cardiac event occurring within 30 days. RESULTS Fifty-two of 270 patients in the experimental group were successfully discharged within 6 hours compared with 30 of 272 patients in the control group (19.3% vs 11.0%; odds ratio, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.18-3.13; P = .008). It required 20 hours to discharge the same proportion of patients from the control group as achieved in the experimental group within 6 hours. In the experimental group, 35 additional patients (12.9%) were classified as low risk but admitted to an inpatient ward for cardiac investigation. None of the 35 patients received a diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome after inpatient evaluation. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Using the accelerated diagnostic protocol in the experimental pathway almost doubled the proportion of patients with chest pain discharged early. Clinicians could discharge approximately 1 of 5 patients with chest pain to outpatient follow-up monitoring in less than 6 hours. This diagnostic strategy could be easily replicated in other centers because no extra resources are required.

Development and validation of the Emergency Department Assessment of Chest pain Score and 2h accelerated diagnostic protocol

Objective Risk scores and accelerated diagnostic protocols can identify chest pain patients with low risk of major adverse cardiac event who could be discharged early from the ED, saving time and costs. We aimed to derive and validate a chest pain score and accelerated diagnostic protocol (ADP) that could safely increase the proportion of patients suitable for early discharge. Methods Logistic regression identified statistical predictors for major adverse cardiac events in a derivation cohort. Statistical coefficients were converted to whole numbers to create a score. Clinician feedback was used to improve the clinical plausibility and the usability of the final score (Emergency Department Assessment of Chest pain Score [EDACS]). EDACS was combined with electrocardiogram results and troponin results at 0 and 2 h to develop an ADP (EDACS-ADP). The score and EDACS-ADP were validated and tested for reproducibility in separate cohorts of patients. Results In the derivation (n = 1974) and validation (n = 608) cohorts, the EDACS-ADP classified 42.2% (sensitivity 99.0%, specificity 49.9%) and 51.3% (sensitivity 100.0%, specificity 59.0%) as low risk of major adverse cardiac events, respectively. The intra-class correlation coefficient for categorisation of patients as low risk was 0.87. Conclusion The EDACS-ADP identified approximately half of the patients presenting to the ED with possible cardiac chest pain as having low risk of short-term major adverse cardiac events, with high sensitivity. This is a significant improvement on similar, previously reported protocols. The EDACS-ADP is reproducible and has the potential to make considerable cost reductions to health systems.

Cost and outcomes of assessing patients with chest pain in an Australian emergency department

Objectives: We sought to characterise the demographics, length of admission, final diagnoses, long-term outcome and costs associated with the population who presented to an Australian emergency department (ED) with symptoms of possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Design, setting and participants: Prospectively collected data on ED patients presenting with suspected ACS between November 2008 and February 2011 was used, including data on presentation and at 30 days after presentation. Information on patient disposition, length of stay and costs incurred was extracted from hospital administration records. Main outcome measures: Primary outcomes were mean and median cost and length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes were diagnosis of ACS, other cardiovascular conditions or non-cardiovascular conditions within 30 days of presentation. Results: An ACS was diagnosed in 103 (11.1%) of the 926 patients recruited. 193 patients (20.8%) were diagnosed with other cardiovascular-related conditions and 622 patients (67.2%) had non-cardiac-related chest pain. ACS events occurred in 0 and 11 (1.9%) of the low-risk and intermediate-risk groups, respectively. Ninety-two (28.0%) of the 329 high-risk patients had an ACS event. Patients with a proven ACS, high-grade atrioventricular block, pulmonary embolism and other respiratory conditions had the longest length of stay. The mean cost was highest in the ACS group ($13 509; 95% CI, $11 794–$15 223) followed by other cardiovascular conditions ($7283; 95% CI, $6152–$8415) and non-cardiovascular conditions ($3331; 95% CI, $2976–$3685). Conclusions: Most ED patients with symptoms of possible ACS do not have a cardiac cause for their presentation. The current guideline-based process of assessment is lengthy, costly and consumes significant resources. Investigation of strategies to shorten this process or reduce the need for objective cardiac testing in patients at intermediate risk according to the National Heart Foundation and Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand guideline is required.

Ignoring non-specific abdominal pain in emergency department patients may be related to decreased quality of life. A follow up of an underestimated problem

Patients suffering from chronic pain have a high prevalence of depression, resulting in a significant impact on overall quality of life. Our aim was to investigate how long term acute non-specific abdominal pain (NSAP) affected overall physical and mental well-being in patients admitted to our emergency department (ED).

Pulmonary embolism in the emergency department : a Singaporean nursing case review

Introduction The presentation of pulmonary embolism to the emergency department (ED) can prove challenging because of the myriad of potential disease processes that mimic its signs and symptoms. The incidence of pulmonary embolism and indeed the mortality associated with it is relatively high. Early diagnosis and treatment is crucial in off-setting the potential deleterious effects associated with this condition. The aim of this article is to present a nursing case review of a patient presenting to the ED with a diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Method We chose to use a case review to highlight the nursing and medical care that was provided for a patient who presented to the emergency department acutely with dyspnoea, chest pain and pyrexia. The use of case reviews are useful in reporting unusual or rare cases and this format is typically seen more in medicine than in nursing. They can naturally take one of two formats—a single case report or a series of case reports; in this case we opted to report on a single case. Discussion The gentleman in question was an ambulance admissionto the ED with a three day history of chest pain, shortness of breath and one episode of syncope which brought him to the ED. Over the course of his admission a variety of treatment modalities were used successfully to alleviate the problem. More notable from a nursing perspective was the use of diagnostic tools as an interpretation to guide his care and provide a platform from which a deeper understanding and appreciation of the intricacies the critically ill patient often presents. Conclusion We found the use of case review very enlightening in understanding the disease process and the decision-making that accompanies this. Whilst our patient was successfully rehabilitated home, we learnt a lot from the experience which has been most beneficial in supporting our understanding of pulmonary embolism.

Change to costs and lengths of stay in the emergency department and the Brisbane protocol: An observational study

- Objective To compare health service cost and length of stay between a traditional and an accelerated diagnostic approach to assess acute coronary syndromes (ACS) among patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) of a large tertiary hospital in Australia. - Design, setting and participants This historically controlled study analysed data collected from two independent patient cohorts presenting to the ED with potential ACS. The first cohort of 938 patients was recruited in 2008–2010, and these patients were assessed using the traditional diagnostic approach detailed in the national guideline. The second cohort of 921 patients was recruited in 2011–2013 and was assessed with the accelerated diagnostic approach named the Brisbane protocol. The Brisbane protocol applied early serial troponin testing for patients at 0 and 2 h after presentation to ED, in comparison with 0 and 6 h testing in traditional assessment process. The Brisbane protocol also defined a low-risk group of patients in whom no objective testing was performed. A decision tree model was used to compare the expected cost and length of stay in hospital between two approaches. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to account for model uncertainty. - Results Compared with the traditional diagnostic approach, the Brisbane protocol was associated with reduced expected cost of $1229 (95% CI −$1266 to $5122) and reduced expected length of stay of 26 h (95% CI −14 to 136 h). The Brisbane protocol allowed physicians to discharge a higher proportion of low-risk and intermediate-risk patients from ED within 4 h (72% vs 51%). Results from sensitivity analysis suggested the Brisbane protocol had a high chance of being cost-saving and time-saving. - Conclusions This study provides some evidence of cost savings from a decision to adopt the Brisbane protocol. Benefits would arise for the hospital and for patients and their families.

A Non-Inferiority Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Clinical Effectiveness of Anesthesia Obtained by Application of a Novel Topical Anesthetic Putty With the Infiltration of Lidocaine for the Treatment of Lacerations in the Emergency Department

We test the hypothesis that anesthesia, measured as pain scores, induced by a novel topical anesthetic putty is non-inferior (margin=1.3) to that provided by conventional lidocaine infiltration for the repair of lacerations.