Dataset Information

EPICANCER-Cancer Patients Presenting to the Emergency Departments in France: A Prospective Nationwide Study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:We aimed to estimate the prevalence of cancer patients who presented to Emergency Departments (EDs), report their chief complaint and identify the predictors of 30-day all-cause mortality. PATIENTS AND METHODS:we undertook a prospective, cross-sectional study during three consecutive days in 138 EDs and performed a logistic regression to identify the predictors of 30-day mortality in hospitalized patients. RESULTS:A total of 1380 cancer patients were included. The prevalence of cancer patients among ED patients was 2.8%. The most frequent reasons patients sought ED care were fatigue (16.6%), dyspnea (16.3%), gastro-intestinal disorders (15.1%), trauma (13.0%), fever (12.5%) and neurological disorders (12.5%). Patients were admitted to the hospital in 64.9% of cases, of which 13.4% died at day 30. Variables independently associated with a higher mortality at day 30 were male gender (Odds Ratio (OR), 1.63; 95% CI, 1.04-2.56), fatigue (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.01-2.67), poor performance status (OR, 3.00; 95% CI, 1.87-4.80), solid malignancy (OR, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.26-7.40), uncontrolled malignancy (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.36-3.80), ED attendance for a neurological disorder (OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.36-4.19), high shock-index (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.03-3.13) and oxygen therapy (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.68-4.29). CONCLUSION:Cancer patients showed heterogeneity among their reasons for ED attendance and a high need for hospitalization and case fatality. Malignancy and general health status played a major role in the patient outcomes. This study suggests that the emergency care of cancer patients may be complex. Thus, studies to assess the impact of a dedicated oncology curriculum for ED physicians are warranted.

SUBMITTER: Peyrony O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7291158 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

EPICANCER-Cancer Patients Presenting to the Emergency Departments in France: A Prospective Nationwide Study.

Peyrony Olivier O Fontaine Jean-Paul JP Beaune Sébastien S Khoury Abdo A Truchot Jennifer J Balen Frédéric F Vally Rishad R Schmitt Jacques J Ben Hammouda Kasarra K Roussel Mélanie M Borzymowski Céline C Vallot Cécile C Sanh Veronique V Azoulay Elie E Chevret Sylvie S

Journal of clinical medicine 20200517 5

<h4>Background</h4>We aimed to estimate the prevalence of cancer patients who presented to Emergency Departments (EDs), report their chief complaint and identify the predictors of 30-day all-cause mortality.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>we undertook a prospective, cross-sectional study during three consecutive days in 138 EDs and performed a logistic regression to identify the predictors of 30-day mortality in hospitalized patients.<h4>Results</h4>A total of 1380 cancer patients were included. Th ...[more]

PMID: 32429507

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceBetter understanding of the emergency care needs of patients with cancer will inform outpatient and emergency department (ED) management.ObjectiveTo provide a benchmark description of patients who present to the ED with active cancer.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter prospective cohort study included 18 EDs affiliated with the Comprehensive Oncologic Emergencies Research Network (CONCERN). Of 1564 eligible patients, 1075 adults with active cancer were included from February 1, 2016, through January 30, 2017. Data were analyzed from February 1 through August 1, 2018.Main outcomes and measuresThe proportion of patients reporting symptoms (eg, pain, nausea) before and during the ED visit, ED and outpatient medications, most common diagnoses, and suspected infection as indicated by ED antibiotic administration. The proportions observed, admitted, and with a hospital length of stay (LOS) of no more than 2 days were identified.ResultsOf 1075 participants, mean (SD) age was 62 (14) years, and 51.8% were female. Seven hundred ninety-four participants (73.9%; 95% CI, 71.1%-76.5%) had undergone cancer treatment in the preceding 30 days; 674 (62.7%; 95% CI, 59.7%-65.6%) had advanced or metastatic cancer; and 505 (47.0%; 95% CI, 43.9%-50.0%) were 65 years or older. The 5 most common ED diagnoses were symptom related. Of all participants, 82 (7.6%; 95% CI, 6.1%-9.4%) were placed in observation and 615 (57.2%; 95% CI, 54.2%-60.2%) were admitted; 154 of 615 admissions (25.0%; 95% CI, 21.7%-28.7%) had an LOS of 2 days or less (median, 3 days; interquartile range, 2-6 days). Pain during the ED visit was present in 668 patients (62.1%; 95% CI, 59.2%-65.0%; mean [SD] pain score, 6.4 [2.6] of 10.0) and in 776 (72.2%) during the prior week. Opioids were administered in the ED to 228 of 386 patients (59.1%; 95% CI, 18.8%-23.8%) with moderate to severe ED pain. Outpatient opioids were prescribed to 368 patients (47.4%; 95% CI, 3.14%-37.2%) of those with pre-ED pain, including 244 of 428 (57.0%; 95% CI, 52.2%-61.8%) who reported quite a bit or very much pain. Nausea in the ED was present in 336 (31.3%; 95% CI, 28.5%-34.1%); of these, 160 (47.6%; 95% CI, 12.8%-17.1%) received antiemetics in the ED. Antibiotics were administered in the ED to 285 patients (26.5%; 95% CI, 23.9%-29.2%). Of these, 209 patients (73.3%; 95% CI, 17.1%-21.9%) were admitted compared with 427 of 790 (54.1%; 95% CI, 50.5%-57.6%) not receiving antibiotics.Conclusions and relevanceThis initial prospective, multicenter study profiling patients with cancer who were treated in the ED identifies common characteristics in this patient population and suggests opportunities to optimize care before, during, and after the ED visit. Improvement requires collaboration between specialists and emergency physicians optimizing ED use, improving symptom control, avoiding unnecessary hospitalizations, and appropriately stratifying risk to ensure safe ED treatment and disposition of patients with cancer.

Project description:ImportanceThe sequelae of palate trauma vary from minimal discomfort to major neurovascular injury. Infrequency of palate trauma and clinician unfamiliarity with the disease process may lead to variation in evaluation, treatment, and disposition in the emergency department (ED).ObjectivesTo measure the incidence of primary palate trauma visits to US emergency departments with analysis of demographics, disposition, and repair and to determine frequency and factors associated with head and neck imaging.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective analysis using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Emergency Department Sample was performed of 22 094 patients presenting to US emergency departments from 2006 to 2010 with a primary diagnosis of palate trauma. Data analysis was conducted from March 29, 2016, to November 18, 2017.Main outcomes and measuresNational estimates of palate trauma were calculated from weights available within the database. Palate repair was identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes. Imaging was calculated from reliable Current Procedural Terminology coding facilities identified using a previously published method. Logistic models were calculated to identify clinical associations for admission, imaging, and palate repair.ResultsA total of 22 094 patients (13 967 male and 8121 female patients, 6 missing data on sex; median age, 2.8 years [interquartile range, 1.1-6.1 years]) with primary palate trauma presented to US emergency departments during the study period. Total hospital visits decreased from 4715 (1.58 per 100 000 people) to 3915 (1.26 per 100 000 people) during the 5-year study period. A total of 19 819 patients (89.7%) had routine discharge from the hospital, while palate repair (965 [4.4%]) and mortality (34 [0.2%]) were rare. Complicated palate trauma (odds ratio [OR], 5.32; 95% CI, 3.10-9.15), male sex (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.11-2.21), codiagnosis status (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.84-4.12), and residence in the Northeast vs South (OR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.11-6.71) increased the likelihood of admission, which was infrequent (1027 patients [4.6%]). After restriction to reliable Current Procedural Terminology coding facilities, head and neck imaging occurred in 823 of 6897 patients (11.9%). Factors associated with head and neck imaging included living in a medium vs large metropolitan area (OR 1.62; 95% CI, 1.04-2.55), while living in the Midwest vs South region (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.25-0.74) had a negative association with imaging.Conclusions and relevanceAlthough it is often suggested in the otolaryngology literature to perform imaging, primary palate trauma usually results in a routine discharge home without imaging or repair. Imaging frequency should be noted since palate trauma could have life-threatening neurovascular sequelae, which presents an opportunity to define and promote optimal management for potential neurologic sequelae in the patients who were not imaged.

Project description:BackgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia that causes numerous visits to emergency departments (ED). The aim of the FinFib2 study was to evaluate whether treatment of patients with AF in ED is consistent with the contemporary European Society of Cardiology (ESC) management guidelines. Here we report the results of antiarrhythmic drug therapy (AAD) in ED.MethodsAll patients within the two-week study period whose primary reason for the ED visit was symptomatic AF were included into this prospective multicentre study. Comprehensive data on factors contributing to the treatment of AF were collected, including a data of previous use of ADDs, and changes made for them during a visit in ED.ResultsThe study population consisted of 1013 consecutive patients (mean age 70 ± 13 years, 47.6% female). The mean European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) symptom score was 2.2 ± 0.8. Rhythm control strategy was opt for 498 (63.8%) and 140 (64.5%) patients with previously and newly diagnosed AF, respectively. In patients with previously diagnosed AF the most frequently used AAD was a beta blocker (80.9%). Prior use of class I (11.4%) and III (9.1%) AADs as well as start or adjustment of their dosage (7.4%) were uncommon. Most of the patients with newly diagnosed AF were prescribed a beta blocker (71.0%) or a calcium channel antagonist (24.0%), and only two of them received class I or class III AADs.ConclusionsOur data demonstrated that in patients presenting to the ED with recurrent symptomatic AF and aimed for rhythm control strategy, the use of class I and class III AADs was rare despite ESC guideline recommendations. It is possible that early adaptation of a more aggressive rhythm control strategy might improve a quality of life for symptomatic patients and alleviate the ED burden associated with AF. Beta blockers were used by majority of patients as rate control therapy both in rate and rhythm control groups.Trial registrationNCT01990105 . Registered 15 November 2013.

Project description:BackgroundFor several decades, emergency departments (EDs) utilization has increased, inducing ED overcrowding in many countries. This phenomenon is related partly to an excessive number of nonurgent patients. To resolve ED overcrowding and to decrease nonurgent visits, the most common solution has been to triage the ED patients to identify potentially nonurgent patients, i.e. which could have been dealt with by general practitioner. The objective of this study was to measure agreement among ED health professionals on the urgency of an ED visit, and to determine if the level of agreement is consistent among different sub-groups based on following explicit criteria: age, medical status, type of referral to the ED, investigations performed in the ED, and the discharge from the ED.MethodsWe conducted a multicentric cross-sectional study to compare agreement between nurses and physicians on categorization of ED visits into urgent or nonurgent. Subgroups stratified by criteria characterizing the ED visit were analyzed in relation to the outcome of the visit.ResultsOf 1,928 ED patients, 350 were excluded because data were lacking. The overall nurse-physician agreement on categorization was moderate (kappa = 0.43). The levels of agreement within all subgroups were variable and low. The highest agreement concerned three subgroups of complaints: cranial injury (kappa = 0.61), gynaecological (kappa = 0.66) and toxicology complaints (kappa = 1.00). The lowest agreement concerned two subgroups: urinary-nephrology (kappa = 0.09) and hospitalization (kappa = 0.20). When categorization of ED visits into urgent or nonurgent cases was compared to hospitalization, ED physicians had higher sensitivity and specificity than nurses (respectively 94.9% versus 89.5%, and 43.1% versus 30.9%).ConclusionsThe lack of physician-nurse agreement and the inability to predict hospitalization have important implications for patient safety. When urgency screening is used to determine treatment priority, disagreement might not matter because all patients in the ED are seen and treated. But using assessments as the basis for refusal of care to potential nonurgent patients raises legal, ethical, and safety issues. Managed care organizations should be cautious when applying such criteria to restrict access to EDs.

Dataset Information

EPICANCER-Cancer Patients Presenting to the Emergency Departments in France: A Prospective Nationwide Study.

Publications

EPICANCER-Cancer Patients Presenting to the Emergency Departments in France: A Prospective Nationwide Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets