PurposeClinical decision rules for the disposition of patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) are typically validated against an outcome of 30-day mortality or disease recurrence. There is little justification for this time frame, nor is it clear whether this outcome reflects emergency department (ED) decision making.AimsTo determine which outcomes emergency physicians (EP) consider most relevant to disposition decisions.MethodsSurvey of attending EPs in geographically diverse US states using acute PE as the diagnostic framework. Responses required single-answer multiple choice, a numerical percentage, rank-ordered responses, or a five-point Likert scale. We distributed the survey via e-mail to 608 EPs.ResultsWe received responses from 292 (48%) EPs: 88% board certified, 91% trained in emergency medicine, and 70% work in academics. Respondents reported discharging 1% of patients with PE from the ED, but 21% reported being asked to do so by an admitting service. EPs were more interested in knowing 5-day (in hospital) outcomes [192/265, 72% (95% exact CI = 66%–78%)] than 30-day outcomes [39/261, 15% (95% exact CI = 11%–20%)] or 90-day outcomes [29/263, 11% (95% exact CI = 8%–15%)]. On a Likert scale, 212/241 (88%, 95% exact CI = 83%–92%) agreed or strongly agreed that they considered 5-day (in hospital) clinical deterioration when making a decision to admit or discharge a patient from the ED compared to 184/242 (76%, 95% exact CI = 70%–81%) and 73/242 (30%, 95% exact CI = 24%–36%) for 30 and 90 days, respectively. A wide variety of clinical outcomes beyond death or recurrent PE were considered indicative of clinical deterioration.ConclusionsFive-day (in hospital) outcomes that incorporate a variety of clinical deterioration events are of interest to EPs when determining the disposition of ED patients with PE. Researchers should consider this when developing and validating clinical decision rules.

Introduction:The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) Task Force on Boarding described high-impact initiatives to decrease crowding. Furthermore, some emergency departments (EDs) have implemented a novel initiative we term “vertical patient flow,” i.e. segmenting patients who can be safely evaluated, managed, admitted or discharged without occupying a traditional ED room. We sought to determine the degree that ACEP-identified high-impact initiatives for ED crowding and vertical patient flow have been implemented in academic EDs in the United States (U.S.).Methods:We surveyed the physician leadership of all U.S. academic EDs from March to May 2010 using a 2-minute online survey. Academic ED was defined by the primary site of an emergency residency program.Results:We had a response rate of 73% (106/145) and a completion rate of 71% (103/145). The most prevalent hospital-based initiative was inpatient discharge coordination (46% [47/103] of respondents) while the least fully initiated was surgical schedule smoothing (11% [11/103]). The most prevalent ED-based initiative was fast track (79% [81/103]) while the least initiated was physician triage (12% [12/103]). Vertical patient flow had been implemented in 29% (30/103) of responding EDs while an additional 41% (42/103) reported partial/in progress implementation.Conclusion:We found great variability in the extent academic EDs have implemented ACEP’s established high-impact ED crowding initiatives, yet most (70%) have adopted to some extent the novel initiative vertical patient flow. Future studies should examine barriers to implementing these crowding initiatives and how they affect outcomes such as patient safety, ED throughput and patient/provider satisfaction.

The term mechanical fall is unclear, inconsistently used, and not associated with a discrete fall evaluation and does not predict outcomes. We propose eliminating the term because it inaccurately implies that a benign etiology for an older person's fall exists.

Objective. Emergency department (ED) revisits are a common ED quality measure. This study was undertaken to ascertain the contributing factors of revisits within 48 hours to a Thai ED and to explore physician-related, illness-related, and patient-related factors behind those revisits. Methods. This study was a chart review from one tertiary care, urban Thai hospital from October 1, 2009, to September 31, 2010. We identified patients who returned to the ED within 48 hours for the same or related complaints after their initial discharge. Three physicians classified revisit as physician-related, illness-related, and patient-related factors. Results. Our study included 172 ED patients' charts. 86/172 (50%) were male and the mean age was 38 ± 5.6 (SD) years. The ED revisits contributing factors were physician-related factors [86/172 (50.0%)], illness-related factors [61/172 (35.5%)], and patient-related factor [25/172 (14.5%)], respectively. Among revisits classified as physician-related factors, 40/86 (46.5%) revisits were due to misdiagnosis and 36/86 (41.9%) were due to suboptimal management. Abdominal pain [27/86 (31.4%)] was the majority of physician-related chief complaints, followed by fever [16/86 (18.6%)] and dyspnea [15/86 (17.4%)]. Conclusion. Misdiagnosis and suboptimal management contributed to half of the 48-hour repeat ED visits in this Thai hospital.

BackgroundIn disaster situations, the elderly are considered to be a particularly vulnerable population. Preparedness is the key to reduce post-disaster damage. There is limited research in middle-income countries on how well elderly emergency department (ED) patients are prepared for disaster situations. The objective of this study was to determine the attitudes and behavior of elderly ED patients toward disaster preparedness.MethodsThis study was a cross-sectional face-to-face survey at one urban teaching hospital in Bangkok, Thailand between August 1st and September 30th, 2016. Patients aged 60 and older who presented to the ED were included to this study. We excluded patients who had severe dementia [defined as Short Portable Mental State Questionnaires (SPMSQ) > 8], were unable to speak Thai, had severe trauma and/or needed immediate resuscitation. The survey instruction was adapted from previous disaster surveys. This study was approved by the Vajira Institutional Review Board (IRB).ResultsA total of 243 patients were enrolled. Most of them were female [154 patients (63.4%)]. The median age was 72 [Interquartile range (IQR) 66–81] years and the most common underlying diseases were hypertension [148 patients (60.9%)] and diabetes [108 patients (44.4%)]. The majority of patients [172 patients (72.4%)] reported that they had had some teaching about disaster knowledge from a healthcare provider and had experienced a disaster [138 patients (56.8%)]. While 175/197 (81.8%) patients who had underlying diseases reported that they had a medication supply for disaster situations, only 61 (25.1%) patients had an emergency toolbox for disasters. Most patients (159, 65.4%) did not know the emergency telephone number, and 133 (54.7%) patients reported transportation limitations.ConclusionsWhile most Thai elderly ED patients reported having a medication supply for disaster situations, many lacked comprehensive plans for a disaster situation. Work needs to be done to improve the quality of preparedness in disaster situations among elderly patients. Future research should focus on preparedness knowledge regarding evacuation, and shelter/residence for older patients.

No abstract

BackgroundThe Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Geriatric Emergency Medicine Task Force recommends assessment of delirium for all elderly emergency department (ED) patients. Little is known about emergency physicians' (EPs) opinions regarding care of delirious elderly patients. We sought to determine the knowledge and practice experience of members of the Thai Association for Emergency Medicine regarding the care of delirious elderly ED patients.MethodsWe surveyed all Thai emergency physicians from July to September 2013 using a brief online survey as this does not include any non-trained physician working in the private/provincial/community EDs, still a significant part of the ED workforce in Thailand.ResultsWe had a response rate of 50% (239/474) of which 95% (228/239) completed the survey. Respondents largely reported that <10% of their patients experience delirium. Eighty-five percent of the respondents recognized delirium as a problem that required active intervention, and 76% of the respondents thought it was underdiagnosed in the ED. Only 24% of the respondents reported routinely screening delirium in the ED and 16% reported using a specific screening tool for delirium assessment. Forty-two percent of the respondents reported treating delirium with a long acting benzodiazepine and 29% reported using haloperidol. Forty percent of respondents thought that oversedation was the most common complication associated with drug treatment of delirium.ConclusionsBasic knowledge and perceptions surrounding the recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of delirium in elderly ED patients by Thai EPs vary. Most of the Thai EPs consider delirium in the ED an emergency condition, while far fewer screen for this condition. Future research and quality improvement should determine which single screening tool is appropriate for EPs in regular practice as well as how to standardize delirium management in the ED.

Background: In disaster situations, the elderly are considered to be a particularly vulnerable population. Preparedness is the key to reduce post-disaster damage. There is limited research in middle-income countries on how well elderly emergency department (ED) patients are prepared for disaster situations. The objective of this study was to determine the attitudes and behavior of elderly ED patients toward disaster preparedness. Methods: This study was a cross-sectional face-to-face survey at one urban teaching hospital in Bangkok, Thailand between August 1st and September 30th, 2016. Patients aged 60 and older who presented to the ED were included to this study. We excluded patients who had severe dementia [defined as Short Portable Mental State Questionnaires (SPMSQ) > 8], were unable to speak Thai, had severe trauma and/or needed immediate resuscitation. The survey instruction was adapted from previous disaster surveys. This study was approved by the Vajira Institutional Review Board (IRB). Results: A total of 243 patients were enrolled. Most of them were female [154 patients (63.4%)]. The median age was 72 [Interquartile range (IQR) 66-81] years and the most common underlying diseases were hypertension [148 patients (60.9%)] and diabetes [108 patients (44.4%)]. The majority of patients [172 patients (72.4%)] reported that they had had some teaching about disaster knowledge from a healthcare provider and had experienced a disaster [138 patients (56.8%)]. While 175/197 (81.8%) patients who had underlying diseases reported that they had a medication supply for disaster situations, only 61 (25.1%) patients had an emergency toolbox for disasters. Most patients (159, 65.4%) did not know the emergency telephone number, and 133 (54.7%) patients reported transportation limitations. Conclusions: While most Thai elderly ED patients reported having a medication supply for disaster situations, many lacked comprehensive plans for a disaster situation. Work needs to be done to improve the quality of preparedness in disaster situations among elderly patients. Future research should focus on preparedness knowledge regarding evacuation, and shelter/residence for older patients.