The American journal of emergency medicine · 2018
The HAS-Choice study: Utilizing the HEART score, an ADP, and shared decision-making to decrease admissions in chest pain patients.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gafni-Pappas Gregory, DeMeester Susanne D, Boyd Michael A, Ganti Arun, Nicholson Adam M, Albright Jeremy, Wu Juan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The HAS-Choice pathway utilizes the HEART Score, an accelerated diagnostic protocol (ADP), and shared decision-making using a visual aid in the evaluation of chest pain patients. We seek to determine if our intervention can improve resource utilization in a community emergency department (ED) setting while maintaining safe patient care.
METHODS: This was a single-center prospective cohort study with historical that included ED patients ≥21years old presenting with a primary complaint of chest pain in two time periods. The primary outcome was patient disposition. Secondary outcomes focused on 30-day ED bounce back and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). We used multivariate logistic regression to estimate the odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS: In the pre-implementation period, the unadjusted disposition to inpatient, observation and discharge was 6.5%, 49.1% and 44.4%, respectively, whereas in the post period, the disposition was 4.8%, 41.5% and 53.7%, respectively (chi-square p<0.001). The adjusted odds of a patient being discharged was 40% higher (OR=1.40; 95% CI, 1.30, 1.51; p<0.001) in the post-implementation period. The adjusted odds of patient admission was 30% lower (OR=0.70; 95% CI, 0.60, 0.82; p<0.001) in the post-implementation period. The odds of 30-day ED bounce back did not statistically differ between the two periods. MACE rates were <1% in both periods, with a significant decrease in mortality in the post-implementation period.
CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that implementation of a shared decision-making tool that integrates an ADP and the HEART score can safely decrease hospital admissions without an increase in MACE.
METHODS: This was a single-center prospective cohort study with historical that included ED patients ≥21years old presenting with a primary complaint of chest pain in two time periods. The primary outcome was patient disposition. Secondary outcomes focused on 30-day ED bounce back and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). We used multivariate logistic regression to estimate the odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS: In the pre-implementation period, the unadjusted disposition to inpatient, observation and discharge was 6.5%, 49.1% and 44.4%, respectively, whereas in the post period, the disposition was 4.8%, 41.5% and 53.7%, respectively (chi-square p<0.001). The adjusted odds of a patient being discharged was 40% higher (OR=1.40; 95% CI, 1.30, 1.51; p<0.001) in the post-implementation period. The adjusted odds of patient admission was 30% lower (OR=0.70; 95% CI, 0.60, 0.82; p<0.001) in the post-implementation period. The odds of 30-day ED bounce back did not statistically differ between the two periods. MACE rates were <1% in both periods, with a significant decrease in mortality in the post-implementation period.
CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that implementation of a shared decision-making tool that integrates an ADP and the HEART score can safely decrease hospital admissions without an increase in MACE.