Documentation of pain severity with pain scores is recommended within emergency departments (EDs) to improve consistency of assessment and management of pain. Pain scores are used in treatment ...guidelines and triage algorithms to determine pain management and in audit and research to evaluate pain management practices. Despite significant debate of their benefits, there has been limited evaluation of their use in practice. We use naturalistic, qualitative methods to understand how pain scores are used in practice and the mechanisms by which pain scoring may influence pain management.
We undertook a multiple case study design, using qualitative research in 3 EDs in England (the cases). Case studies incorporated 143 hours of nonparticipant observation, documentary analysis, and semistructured interviews with 36 staff and 19 patients. Data were analyzed with thematic analysis.
Analysis identified that ED staff used the pain score for 2 conflicting purposes: as an auditable tool for guiding patient management and as a tool for monitoring patient experience. This led to ED staff’s facing conflict between reporting their own judgment of what the pain score ought to be and what the patient said it was. Staff justified recording their own judgment according to concerns of accountability and appropriateness of management decisions. Staff thought that pain scoring had value in raising awareness and prompting action.
In practice, pain scoring may not accurately reflect patient experience. Using pain scoring to determine the appropriateness of triage and treatment decisions reduces its validity as a measure of patient experience. Pain scoring should not be central to audit and systems of accountability for pain management.
Sepsis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality and many tools exist to facilitate early recognition. This review compares two tools: the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and ...Early Warning Scores (National/Modified Early Warning Scores (NEWS/MEWS)) for predicting intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality when applied in the emergency department.
A literature search was conducted using Medline, CINAHL, Embase and Cochrane Library, handsearching of references and a grey literature search with no language or date restrictions. Two authors selected studies and quality assessment completed using QUADAS-2. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivities and specificities were compared.
13 studies were included, totalling 403 865 patients. All reported mortality and six reported ICU admission.The ranges for AUROC estimates varied from little better than chance to good prediction of mortality (NEWS: 0.59-0.88; qSOFA: 0.57-0.79; MEWS 0.56-0.75), however, individual papers generally reported higher AUROC values for NEWS than qSOFA. NEWS values demonstrated a tendency towards better sensitivity for ICU admission (NEWS ≥5, 46%-91%; qSOFA ≥2, 12%-53%) and mortality (NEWS ≥5, 51%-97%; qSOFA ≥2, 14%-71%) but lower specificity (ICU: NEWS ≥5, 25%-91%; qSOFA ≥2, 67%-99%; mortality: NEWS ≥5, 22%-91%; qSOFA ≥2, 58%-99%).
The wide range of AUROC estimates and high heterogeneity limit our conclusions. Allowing for this, the NEWS AUROC was consistently higher than qSOFA within individual papers. Both scores allow threshold setting, determined by the preferred compromise between sensitivity and specificity. At established thresholds NEWS tended to higher sensitivity while qSOFA tended to a higher specificity.
CRD42019131414.
Background Multiple studies have evaluated the diagnostic and prognostic performance of conventional troponin (cTn) and high-sensitivity troponin (hs-cTn). We performed a collaborative meta-analysis ...comparing cTn and hs-cTn for diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and assessment of prognosis in patients with chest pain. Methods MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and EMBASE were searched for studies assessing both cTn and hs-cTn in patients with chest pain. Study authors were contacted and many provided previously unpublished data. Results From 17 included studies, there were 8,644 patients. Compared with baseline cTn, baseline hs-cTn had significantly greater sensitivity (0.884 vs 0.749, P < .001) and negative predictive value (NPV; 0.964 vs 0.935, P < .001), whereas specificity (0.816 vs 0.938, P < .001) and positive predictive value (0.558 vs 0.759, P < .001) were significantly reduced. Based on summary receiver operating characteristic curves, test performance for the diagnosis of AMI was not significantly different between baseline cTn and hs-cTn (0.90 95% CI 0.85-0.95 vs 0.92 95% CI 0.90-0.94). In a subanalysis of 6 studies that alternatively defined AMI based on hs-cTn, cTn had lower sensitivity (0.666, P < .001) and NPV (0.906, P < .001). Elevation of baseline hs-cTn, but negative baseline cTn, was associated with increased risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction during follow-up ( P < .001) compared with both negative. Conclusion High-sensitivity troponin has significantly greater early sensitivity and NPV for the diagnosis of AMI at the cost of specificity and positive predictive value, which may enable early rule in/out of AMI in patients with chest pain. Baseline hs-cTn elevation in the setting of negative cTn is also associated with increased nonfatal myocardial infarction or death during follow-up.
Delirium affects > 15% of hospitalised patients but is grossly underdetected, contributing to poor care. The 4 'A's Test (4AT, www.the4AT.com ) is a short delirium assessment tool designed for ...routine use without special training. The primary objective was to assess the accuracy of the 4AT for delirium detection. The secondary objective was to compare the 4AT with another commonly used delirium assessment tool, the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM).
This was a prospective diagnostic test accuracy study set in emergency departments or acute medical wards involving acute medical patients aged ≥ 70. All those without acutely life-threatening illness or coma were eligible. Patients underwent (1) reference standard delirium assessment based on DSM-IV criteria and (2) were randomised to either the index test (4AT, scores 0-12; prespecified score of > 3 considered positive) or the comparator (CAM; scored positive or negative), in a random order, using computer-generated pseudo-random numbers, stratified by study site, with block allocation. Reference standard and 4AT or CAM assessments were performed by pairs of independent raters blinded to the results of the other assessment.
Eight hundred forty-three individuals were randomised: 21 withdrew, 3 lost contact, 32 indeterminate diagnosis, 2 missing outcome, and 785 were included in the analysis. Mean age was 81.4 (SD 6.4) years. 12.1% (95/785) had delirium by reference standard assessment, 14.3% (56/392) by 4AT, and 4.7% (18/384) by CAM. The 4AT had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90 (95% CI 0.84-0.96). The 4AT had a sensitivity of 76% (95% CI 61-87%) and a specificity of 94% (95% CI 92-97%). The CAM had a sensitivity of 40% (95% CI 26-57%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI 98-100%).
The 4AT is a short, pragmatic tool which can help improving detection rates of delirium in routine clinical care.
International standard randomised controlled trial number (ISRCTN) 53388093 . Date applied 30/05/2014; date assigned 02/06/2014.
Study objective A 2-hour accelerated diagnostic pathway based on the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction score, ECG, and troponin measures (ADAPT-ADP) increased early discharge of patients with ...suspected acute myocardial infarction presenting to the emergency department compared with standard care (from 11% to 19.3%). Observational studies suggest that an accelerated diagnostic pathway using the Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Score (EDACS-ADP) may further increase this proportion. This trial tests for the existence and size of any beneficial effect of using the EDACS-ADP in routine clinical care. Methods This was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of adults with suspected acute myocardial infarction, comparing the ADAPT-ADP and the EDACS-ADP. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients discharged to outpatient care within 6 hours of attendance, without subsequent major adverse cardiac event within 30 days. Results Five hundred fifty-eight patients were recruited, 279 in each arm. Sixty-six patients (11.8%) had a major adverse cardiac event within 30 days (ADAPT-ADP 29; EDACS-ADP 37); 11.1% more patients (95% confidence interval 2.8% to 19.4%) were identified as low risk in EDACS-ADP (41.6%) than in ADAPT-ADP (30.5%). No low-risk patients had a major adverse cardiac event within 30 days (0.0% 0.0% to 1.9%). There was no difference in the primary outcome of proportion discharged within 6 hours (EDACS-ADP 32.3%; ADAPT-ADP 34.4%; difference −2.1% −10.3% to 6.0%, P =.65). Conclusion There was no difference in the proportion of patients discharged early despite more patients being classified as low risk by the EDACS-ADP than the ADAPT-ADP. Both accelerated diagnostic pathways are effective strategies for chest pain assessment and resulted in an increased rate of early discharges compared with previously reported rates.
Objectives To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the aortic dissection detection risk score (ADD-RS) used alone or in combination with D-dimer for detecting acute aortic syndrome (AAS) in patients ...presenting with symptoms suggestive of AAS. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to February 2024. Additionally, the reference lists of included studies and other systematic reviews were thoroughly searched. All diagnostic accuracy studies that assessed the use of ADD-RS alone or with D-Dimer for diagnosing AAS compared with a reference standard test (e.g. computer tomographic angiography (CTA), ECG-gated CTA, echocardiography, magnetic resonance angiography, operation, or autopsy) were included. Two reviewers independently selected and extracted data. Risk of bias was appraised using QUADAS-2 tool. Data were synthesised using hierarchical meta-analysis models. Results We selected 13 studies from the 2017 citations identified, including six studies evaluating combinations of ADD-RS alongside D-dimer>500ng/L. Summary sensitivities and specificities (95% credible interval) were: ADD-RS>0 94.6% (90%, 97.5%) and 34.7% (20.7%, 51.2%), ADD-RS>1 43.4% (31.2%, 57.1%) and 89.3% (80.4%, 94.8%); ADD RS>0 or D-Dimer>500ng/L 99.8% (98.7%, 100%) and 21.8% (12.1%, 32.6%); ADD RS>1 or D-Dimer>500ng/L 98.3% (94.9%, 99.5%) and 51.4% (38.7%, 64.1%); ADD RS>1 or ADD RS = 1 with D-dimer>500ng/L 93.1% (87.1%, 96.3%) and 67.1% (54.4%, 77.7%). Conclusions Combinations of ADD-RS and D-dimer can be used to select patients with suspected AAS for imaging with a range of trade-offs between sensitivity (93.1% to 99.8%) and specificity (21.8% to 67.1%).
We aimed to derive and validate a triage tool, based on clinical assessment alone, for predicting adverse outcome in acutely ill adults with suspected COVID-19 infection.
We undertook a mixed ...prospective and retrospective observational cohort study in 70 emergency departments across the United Kingdom (UK). We collected presenting data from 22445 people attending with suspected COVID-19 between 26 March 2020 and 28 May 2020. The primary outcome was death or organ support (respiratory, cardiovascular, or renal) by record review at 30 days. We split the cohort into derivation and validation sets, developed a clinical score based on the coefficients from multivariable analysis using the derivation set, and the estimated discriminant performance using the validation set.
We analysed 11773 derivation and 9118 validation cases. Multivariable analysis identified that age, sex, respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure, oxygen saturation/inspired oxygen ratio, performance status, consciousness, history of renal impairment, and respiratory distress were retained in analyses restricted to the ten or fewer predictors. We used findings from multivariable analysis and clinical judgement to develop a score based on the NEWS2 score, age, sex, and performance status. This had a c-statistic of 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.79-0.81) in the validation cohort and predicted adverse outcome with sensitivity 0.98 (0.97-0.98) and specificity 0.34 (0.34-0.35) for scores above four points.
A clinical score based on NEWS2, age, sex, and performance status predicts adverse outcome with good discrimination in adults with suspected COVID-19 and can be used to support decision-making in emergency care.
ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN28342533, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN28342533.
With millions of pounds spent annually on medical research in the UK, it is important that studies are spending funds wisely. Internal pilots offer the chance to stop a trial early if it becomes ...apparent that the study will not be able to recruit enough patients to show whether an intervention is clinically effective. This study aims to assess the use of internal pilots in individually randomised controlled trials funded by the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme and to summarise the progression criteria chosen in these trials.
Studies were identified from reports of the HTA committees' funding decisions from 2012 to 2016. In total, 242 trials were identified of which 134 were eligible to be included in the audit. Protocols for the eligible studies were located on the NIHR Journals website, and if protocols were not available online then study managers were contacted to provide information.
Over two-thirds (72.4%) of studies said in their protocol that they would include an internal pilot phase for their study and 37.8% of studies without an internal pilot had done an external pilot study to assess the feasibility of the full study. A typical study with an internal pilot has a target sample size of 510 over 24 months and aims to recruit one-fifth of their total target sample size within the first one-third of their recruitment time. There has been an increase in studies adopting a three-tiered structure for their progression rules in recent years, with 61.5% (16/26) of studies using the system in 2016 compared to just 11.8% (2/17) in 2015. There was also a rise in the number of studies giving a target recruitment rate in their progression criteria: 42.3% (11/26) in 2016 compared to 35.3% (6/17) in 2015.
Progression criteria for an internal pilot are usually well specified but targets vary widely. For the actual criteria, red/amber/green systems have increased in popularity in recent years. Trials should justify the targets they have set, especially where targets are low.
Uneven vaccination and less resilient health care systems mean hospitals in LMICs are at risk of being overwhelmed during periods of increased COVID-19 infection. Risk-scores proposed for rapid ...triage of need for admission from the emergency department (ED) have been developed in higher-income settings during initial waves of the pandemic.
Routinely collected data for public hospitals in the Western Cape, South Africa from the 27th August 2020 to 11th March 2022 were used to derive a cohort of 446,084 ED patients with suspected COVID-19. The primary outcome was death or ICU admission at 30 days. The cohort was divided into derivation and Omicron variant validation sets. We developed the LMIC-PRIEST score based on the coefficients from multivariable analysis in the derivation cohort and existing triage practices. We externally validated accuracy in the Omicron period and a UK cohort.
We analysed 305,564 derivation, 140,520 Omicron and 12,610 UK validation cases. Over 100 events per predictor parameter were modelled. Multivariable analyses identified eight predictor variables retained across models. We used these findings and clinical judgement to develop a score based on South African Triage Early Warning Scores and also included age, sex, oxygen saturation, inspired oxygen, diabetes and heart disease. The LMIC-PRIEST score achieved C-statistics: 0.82 (95% CI: 0.82 to 0.83) development cohort; 0.79 (95% CI: 0.78 to 0.80) Omicron cohort; and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.79 to 0.80) UK cohort. Differences in prevalence of outcomes led to imperfect calibration in external validation. However, use of the score at thresholds of three or less would allow identification of very low-risk patients (NPV ≥0.99) who could be rapidly discharged using information collected at initial assessment.
The LMIC-PRIEST score shows good discrimination and high sensitivity at lower thresholds and can be used to rapidly identify low-risk patients in LMIC ED settings.
PDF
