Background-Cardiac stress testing in patients at low risk for acute coronary syndrome is associated with increased false-positive test results, unnecessary downstream procedures, and increased cost. We judged it unlikely that patient preferences were driving the decision to obtain stress testing. Methods and Results-The Chest Pain Choice trial was a prospective randomized evaluation involving 204 patients who were randomized to a decision aid or usual care and were followed for 30 days. The decision aid included a 100-person pictograph depicting the pretest probability of acute coronary syndrome and available management options (observation unit admission and stress testing or 24 -72 hours outpatient follow-up). The primary outcome was patient knowledge measured by an immediate postvisit survey. Additional outcomes included patient engagement in decision making and the proportion of patients who decided to undergo observation unit admission and cardiac stress testing. Compared with usual care patients (nϭ103), decision aid patients (nϭ101) had significantly greater knowledge (3.6 versus 3.0 questions correct; mean difference, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.34 -1.0), were more engaged in decision making as indicated by higher OPTION (observing patient involvement) scores (26.6 versus 7.0; mean difference, 19.6; 95% CI, 1.6 -21.6), and decided less frequently to be admitted to the observation unit for stress testing (58% versus 77%; absolute difference, 19%; 95% CI, 6%-31%). There were no major adverse cardiac events after discharge in either group. Conclusions-Use of a decision aid in patients with chest pain increased knowledge and engagement in decision making and decreased the rate of observation unit admission for stress testing.

No abstract

Objectives: Effective feedback is critical to medical education. Little is known about emergency medicine (EM) attending and resident physician perceptions of feedback. The focus of this study was to examine perceptions of the educational feedback that attending physicians give to residents in the clinical environment of the emergency department (ED). The authors compared attending and resident satisfaction with real-time feedback and hypothesized that the two groups would report different overall satisfaction with the feedback they currently give and receive in the ED.Methods: This observational study surveyed attending and resident physicians at 17 EM residency programs through web-based surveys. The primary outcome was overall satisfaction with feedback in the ED, ranked on a 10-point scale. Additional survey items addressed specific aspects of feedback. Responses were compared using a linear generalized estimating equation (GEE) model for overall satisfaction, a logistic GEE model for dichotomized responses, and an ordinal logistic GEE model for ordinal responses.Results: Three hundred seventy-three of 525 (71%) attending physicians and 356 of 596 (60%) residents completed the survey. Attending physicians were more satisfied with overall feedback (mean score 5.97 vs. 5.29, p < 0.001) and with timeliness of feedback (odds ratio [OR] = 1.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23 to 2.00; p < 0.001) than residents. Attending physicians were also more likely to rate the quality of feedback as very good or excellent for positive feedback, constructive feedback, feedback on procedures, documentation, management of ED flow, and evidence-based decision-making. Attending physicians reported time constraints as the top obstacle to giving feedback and were more likely than residents to report that feedback is usually attending initiated (OR = 7.09, 95% CI = 3.53 to 14.31; p < 0.001).Conclusions: Attending physician satisfaction with the quality, timeliness, and frequency of feedback given is higher than resident physician satisfaction with feedback received. Attending and resident physicians have differing perceptions of who initiates feedback and how long it takes to provide effective feedback. Knowledge of these differences in perceptions about feedback may be used to direct future educational efforts to improve feedback in the ED.ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2009; 16:S76-S81 ª

No abstract

Objectives Overcapacity issues plague emergency departments (EDs). Studies suggest triage liaison providers (TLPs) may shorten patient length of stay (LOS) and reduce the proportion of patients who leave without being seen (LWBS), but these results are not universal. Previous studies used physicians as TLPs. We evaluated whether a physician assistant (PA), acting as a TLP, would shorten LOS and decrease LWBS rates. Methods The authors used an observational cohort controlled before-and-after study design with predefined outcome measures, comparing eight pilot days to eight control days. The TLP evaluated all Emergency Severity Index (ESI) level 3, 4, and 5 patients, excluding pediatric and behavioral health patients. Results Three hundred fifty-three patients were included on pilot days, and 371 on control days. LOS was shorter on pilot days than control days (median 229 minutes [IQR 168 to 303 minutes] vs. 270 minutes [IQR 187 to 372 minutes], p < 0.001). Waiting room times were similar between pilot and control days (median 69 minutes [IQR 20 to 119 minutes] vs. 70 minutes [IQR 19 to 137 minutes], p = 0.408), but treatment room times were shorter (median 151 minutes [IQR 92 to 223 minutes] vs. 187 minutes [IQR 110 to 254 minutes], p < 0.001). Finally, a lower proportion of patients LWBS on pilot days (1.4% vs. 9.7%, p < 0.001). Conclusions The addition of a PA as a TLP was associated with a 41 minute decrease in median total LOS, and a lower proportion of patients who LWBS. The decrease in total LOS is likely attributable to the addition of the TLP, with patients having shorter duration in treatment rooms on pilot days compared to control days.

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of self-collected and health care worker (HCW)-collected nasal swabs for detection of influenza viruses and determine the patients' preference for type of collection. Patients and Methods: We enrolled adult patients presenting with influenzalike illness to the Emergency Department at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, from January 28, 2011, through April 30, 2011. Patients self-collected a midturbinate nasal flocked swab from their right nostril following written instructions. A second swab was then collected by an HCW from the left nostril. Swabs were tested for influenza A and B viruses by real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, and percent concordance between collection methods was determined. Results: Of the 72 paired specimens analyzed, 25 were positive for influenza A or B RNA by at least one of the collection methods (34.7% positivity rate). When the 14 patients who had prior health care training were excluded, the qualitative agreement between collection methods was 94.8% (55 of 58). Two of the 58 specimens (3.4%) from patients without health care training were positive only by HCW collection, and 1 of 58 (1.7%) was positive only by patient self-collection. A total of 53.4% of patients (31 of 58) preferred the self-collection method over the HCW collection, and 25.9% (15 of 58) had no preference. Conclusion: Self-collected midturbinate nasal swabs provide a reliable alternative to HCW collection for influenza A and B virus real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction.

No abstract

No abstract