Dataset Information

Patient Preferences for Diagnostic Testing in the Emergency Department: A Cross-sectional Study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Diagnostic testing is common during emergency department (ED) visits. Little is understood about patient preferences for such testing. We hypothesized that a patient's willingness to undergo diagnostic testing is influenced by the potential benefit, risk, and personal cost. METHODS:We conducted a cross sectional survey among ED patients for diagnostic testing in two hypothetical scenarios: chest pain (CP) and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Each scenario defined specific risks, benefits, and costs of testing. The odds of a participant desiring diagnostic testing were calculated using a series of nested multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS:Participants opted for diagnostic testing 68.2% of the time, including 69.7% of CP and 66.7% of all mTBI scenarios. In the CP scenario, 81% of participants desired free testing versus 59% when it was associated with a $100 copay (difference = 22%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 16% to 28%). Similarly, in the mTBI scenario, 73% of adult participants desired free testing versus 56% when charged a $100 copayment (difference = 17%, 95% CI = 11% to 24%). Benefit and risk had mixed effects across the scenarios. In fully adjusted models, the association between cost and desire for testing persisted in the CP (odds ratio [OR] = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.47) and adult mTBI (OR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.67) scenarios. CONCLUSIONS:In this ED-based study, patient preferences for diagnostic testing differed significantly across levels of risk, benefit, and cost of diagnostic testing. Cost was the strongest and most consistent factor associated with decreased desire for testing.

SUBMITTER: Porath JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5995656 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient Preferences for Diagnostic Testing in the Emergency Department: A Cross-sectional Study.

Porath Jonathan D JD Meka Arjun P AP Morrow Chelsea C Iyengar Rahul R Shtull-Leber Eytan E Fagerlin Angela A Meurer William J WJ

Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine 20180601 6

<h4>Background</h4>Diagnostic testing is common during emergency department (ED) visits. Little is understood about patient preferences for such testing. We hypothesized that a patient's willingness to undergo diagnostic testing is influenced by the potential benefit, risk, and personal cost.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a cross sectional survey among ED patients for diagnostic testing in two hypothetical scenarios: chest pain (CP) and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Each scenario defined spe ...[more]

PMID: 29505177

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveIt is challenging to identify sepsis in the emergency department, in part due to the non-specific presentation of septic patients. Current clinical sepsis screening tools rely on vital signs but many patients present with near normal vital signs and are therefore not identified as septic. This suggests that variables, e.g. signs and symptoms, need to be included to improve sepsis detection in the emergency department. Our hypothesis was that the presentation of sepsis differs based age and sex. The potential differences in presentation could be used to apply to future sepsis screening tools. The aim was to analyze the prevalence of keywords reflecting the presentation of septic patients in the emergency department in relation to age and sex.MethodRetrospective cross-sectional study. Keywords reflecting sepsis presentation to the emergency department were quantified and compared between age categories and the sex. 479 patients admitted to the emergency department of Södersjukhuset, Stockholm during 2013 and discharged with an ICD-10 code consistent with sepsis were included. We adjusted for multiple comparisons by applying Bonferroni-adjusted significance levels for all comparisons.Result"Pain" and "risk factors for sepsis" were significantly more common among patients younger than 65 years as compared with those 75 years and older: (n = 87/137; 63.5% vs n = 99/240; 41.3%, P-value < 0.000) and (n = 74/137; 54.0% vs 55/240; 22.9%, P-value < 0.000) respectively. "Risk factors for sepsis" was also significantly more common among patients between 65 and 74 years as compared with those 75 years and older: (n = 43/102; 42.2% vs 55/240; 22.9%, P-value < 0.000). "Pain" and "gastrointestinal symptoms" were significantly more common among women as compared with men: (n = 128/224; 57.1% vs n = 102/255; 40.0%, P-value < 0.000) and (n = 82/244; 36.6% vs n = 55/255; 21.6%, P-value < 0.000) respectively.ConclusionThe keywords "pain" and "risk factors for sepsis" were more common among younger patients and "pain" and "gastrointestinal symptoms" were more common among women. However, most keywords had a similar prevalence irrespective of age and sex. The results could potentially be used to augment sepsis screening tools or clinical decision tools.

Project description:BackgroundA fast and diagnostic accurate tool to assess the unselected category of high-acuity patients, in whom the underlying pathology is not always obvious, is needed in the emergency departments (ED). We aim to describe the feasibility, validity and diagnostic yield of a routine whole-body-focused ultrasonography (wbf-us) in an unselected group of high-acuity ED patients.MethodsIn a prospective observational study, a convenience sample of ED patients (≥ 18 years) with a high-acuity score or systolic blood pressure < 100 mmHg received a routine wbf-us of the heart, lungs, abdomen and deep veins by two non-expert sonographers. Final diagnosis was established by experienced auditors. Investigators were blinded to the patients' medical history and emergency physicians and auditors were blinded to the investigators assessments. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed by comparing the investigators' ultrasonography findings to a structured double-blinded clinical audit of patient files.ResultsWe included 171 patients, initiated a whole-body-focused ultrasonography examination (wbf-us) in 160 and completed it in 128 patients with an average time of a full examination of 28 min. We found pathology in 65/171 (38%) of the patients whose most frequent symptoms upon arrival were cardiopulmonary. Among the patients who received wbf-us, we found the majority of pathology by wbf-us of the lungs (n = 50, 31%), the heart (n = 26, 16%), few in the abdomen (n = 5, 3%) and none in the deep veins. The overall sensitivity was 50-100%, specificity 84-94%, positive predictive value 11-44% and negative predictive value 94-100%.ConclusionFocused cardiopulmonary ultrasonography might be considered for routine use in high-acuity ED patients with cardiopulmonary symptoms whereas focused ultrasonography of the abdomen and deep veins performed by non-expert sonographers only seems indicated in selected patients. Trial registration Danish Data Protection Agency (ID 13/12076). Committee on Biomedical Research Ethics for the Region of Southern Denmark (ID S-20130047).

Dataset Information

Patient Preferences for Diagnostic Testing in the Emergency Department: A Cross-sectional Study.

Publications

Patient Preferences for Diagnostic Testing in the Emergency Department: A Cross-sectional Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets