Delayed Recognition of Acute Stroke by Emergency Department Staff Following Failure to Activate Stroke by Emergency Medical Services
UMass Chan AffiliationsDepartment of Emergency Medicine
emergency medical services
Health Services Administration
Nervous System Diseases
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractIntroduction: Early recognition and pre-notification by emergency medical services (EMS) improves the timeliness of emergency department (ED) stroke care; however, little is known regarding the effects on care should EMS providers fail to pre-notify. We sought to determine if potential stroke patients transported by EMS, but for whom EMS did not provide pre-notification, suffer delays in ED door-to-stroke-team activation (DTA) as compared to the other available cohort of patients for whom the ED is not pre-notified-those arriving by private vehicle. Methods: We queried our prospective stroke registry to identify consecutive stroke team activation patients over 12 months and retrospectively reviewed the electronic health record for each patient to validate registry data and abstract other clinical and operational data. We compared patients arriving by private vehicle to those arriving by EMS without pre-notification, and we employed a multivariable, penalized regression model to assess the probability of meeting the national DTA goal of < /=15 minutes, controlling for a variety of clinical factors. Results: Our inclusion criteria were met by 200 patients. Overall performance of the regression model was excellent (area under the curve 0.929). Arrival via EMS without pre-notification, compared to arrival by private vehicle, was associated with an adjusted risk ratio of 0.55 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.96) for achieving DTA < /= 15 minutes. Conclusion: Our single-center data demonstrate that potential stroke patients arriving via EMS without pre-notification are less likely to meet the national DTA goal than patients arriving via other means. These data suggest a negative, unintended consequence of otherwise highly successful EMS efforts to improve stroke care, the root of which may be ED staff over-reliance on EMS for stroke recognition.
West J Emerg Med. 2019 Mar;20(2):342-350. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2018.12.40577. Epub 2019 Feb 6. Link to article on publisher's site
Permanent Link to this Itemhttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/40964
RightsCopyright: © 2019 Tennyson et al. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) License. See: http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Copyright: © 2019 Tennyson et al. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) License. See: http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Funding global emergency medicine research-from seed grants to NIH supportHansoti, Bhakti; Levine, Adam; Ganti, Latha; Oteng, Rockefeller; DesRosiers, Taylor; Modi, Payal; Brown, Jeremy (2016-12-01)BACKGROUND: Funding for global health has grown significantly over the past two decades. Numerous funding opportunities for international development and research work exist; however, they can be difficult to navigate. The 2013 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference on global health and emergency care identified the need to strengthen global emergency care research funding, solidify existing funding streams, and expand funding sources. RESULTS: This piece focuses on the various federal funding opportunities available to support emergency physicians conducting international research from seed funding to large institutional grants. In particular, we focus on the application and review processes for the Fulbright and Fogarty programs, National Institutes of Health (NIH) Career development awards, and the Medical Education Partnership Initiative (MEPI), including tips and pathways through each application process. CONCLUSIONS: Lastly, the paper provides an index that may be used as a guide in determining whether the amount of funding provided by a grant is worth the effort in applying.
Outpatient Emergency Department Utilization: Measurement and Prediction: A DissertationLines, Lisa M. (2014-04-30)Approximately half of all emergency department (ED) visits are primary-care sensitive (PCS) – meaning that they could potentially be avoided with timely, effective primary care. Reducing undesirable types of healthcare utilization (including PCS ED use) requires the ability to define, measure, and predict such use in a population. In this retrospective, observational study, we quantified ED use in 2 privately insured populations and developed ED risk prediction models. One dataset, obtained from a Massachusetts managed-care network (MCN), included data from 2009-11. The second was the MarketScan database, with data from 2007-08. The MCN study included 64,623 individuals enrolled for at least 1 base-year month and 1 prediction-year month in Massachusetts whose primary care provider (PCP) participated in the MCN. The MarketScan study included 15,136,261 individuals enrolled for at least 1 base-year month and 1 prediction-year month in the 50 US states plus DC, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. We used medical claims to identify principal diagnosis codes for ED visits, and scored each according to the New York University Emergency Department algorithm. We defined primary-care sensitive (PCS) ED visits as those in 3 subcategories: nonemergent, emergent but primary-care treatable, and emergent but preventable/avoidable. We then: 1) defined and described the distributions of 3 ED outcomes: any ED use; number of ED visits; and a new outcome, based on the NYU algorithm, that we call PCS ED use; 2) built and validated predictive models for these outcomes using administrative claims data; 3) compared the performance of models predicting any ED use, number of ED visits, and PCS ED use; 4) enhanced these models by adding enrollee characteristics from electronic medical records, neighborhood characteristics, and payor/provider characteristics, and explored differences in performance between the original and enhanced models. In the MarketScan sample, 10.6% of enrollees had at least 1 ED visit, with about half of utilization scored as PCS. For the top risk group (those in the 99.5th percentile), the model’s sensitivity was 3.1%, specificity was 99.7%, and positive predictive value (PPV) was 49.7%. The model predicting PCS visits yielded sensitivity of 3.8%, specificity of 99.7%, and PPV of 40.5% for the top risk group. In the MCN sample, 14.6% (±0.1%) had at least 1 ED visit during the prediction period, with an overall rate of 18.8 (±0.2) visits per 100 persons and 7.6 (±0.1) PCS ED visits per 100 persons. Measuring PCS ED use with a threshold-based approach resulted in many fewer visits counted as PCS, discarding information unnecessarily. Out of 45 practices, 5 to 11 (11-24%) had observed values that were statistically significantly different from their expected values. Models predicting ED utilization using age, sex, race, morbidity, and prior use only (claims-based models) had lower R2 (ranging from 2.9% to 3.7%) and poorer predictive ability than the enhanced models that also included payor, PCP type and quality, problem list conditions, and covariates from the EMR, Census tract, and MCN provider data (enhanced model R2 ranged from 4.17% to 5.14%). In adjusted analyses, age, claims-based morbidity score, any ED visit in the base year, asthma, congestive heart failure, depression, tobacco use, and neighborhood poverty were strongly associated with increased risk for all 3 measures (all P<.001).
Facilitating HIV/AIDS and HIV testing literacy for emergency department patients: a randomized, controlled, trialMerchant, Roland C.; Liu, Tao; Clark, Melissa A.; Carey, Michael P. (2018-07-09)BACKGROUND: Although this has not been fully studied, videos and pictorial brochures might be equivalent methods of delivering HIV/AIDS and HIV testing information to emergency departments (ED) patients. It also is not known how well or for how long such knowledge is retained, if this information should be tailored according to patient health literacy, and if retention of this knowledge impacts future HIV testing behavior. METHODS: We will conduct a multi-site, randomized, controlled, longitudinal trial among 600 English- and 600 Spanish-speaking 18-64-year-old ED patients to investigate these questions. We will stratify our sample within language (English vs. Spanish) by health literacy level (lower vs. higher) and randomly assign patients to receive HIV/AIDS and HIV testing information by video or pictorial brochure. All patients will be tested for HIV in the ED. At 12-months post-enrollment, we will invite participants to be tested again for HIV. As primary aims, we will compare the efficacy of pictorial brochures and videos in improving short-term (in ED) HIV/AIDS and HIV testing knowledge and retaining this knowledge over 12 months. We will determine if and how short-term improvement and longer-term retention of knowledge interacts with information delivery mode (pictorial brochure or video), patient health literacy level (lower or higher), and language (English or Spanish). As secondary aims, using the Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills (IMB) model as a heuristic framework, we will measure constructs from the IMB model relevant to our study, and assess their impact on HIV re-testing behavior; we will also examine the moderating influences of information delivery mode, language, and health literacy level. In addition, we will explore simplified screening strategies to identify ED patients with lower health literacy as ways to implement a tailored approach to HIV/AIDS and HIV testing information delivery in EDs. DISCUSSION: Study findings will guide ED-based delivery of HIV/AIDS and HIV testing information; that is, whether delivery modes (video or pictorial brochure) should be selected for patients by language and/or health literacy level. The results also will inform EDs when, how, and for whom information needs to be provided for those undergoing testing again for HIV within a one-year period. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02284451. Posted November 6, 2014.