A Scoping Review of Emergency Department Discharge Risk Stratification
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
Although emergency department (ED) discharge presents patient-safety challenges and opportunities, the ways in which EDs address discharge risk in the general ED population remains disparate and largely uncharacterized. In this study our goal was to conduct a review of how EDs identify and target patients at increased risk at time of discharge. Methods
We conducted a literature search to explore how EDs assess patient risk upon discharge, including a review of PubMed and gray literature. After independently screening articles for inclusion, we recorded study characteristics including outcome measures, patient risk factors, and tool descriptions. Based on this review and discussion among collaborators, major themes were identified. Results
PubMed search yielded 384 potentially eligible articles. After title and abstract review, we screened 235 for potential inclusion. After full text and reference review, supplemented by Google Scholar and gray literature reviews, we included 30 articles for full review. Three major themes were elucidated: 1) Multiple studies include retrospective risk assessment, whereas the use of point-of-care risk assessment tools appears limited; 2) of the point-of-care tools that exist, inputs and outcome measures varied, and few were applicable to the general ED population; and 3) while many studies describe initiatives to improve the discharge process, few describe assessment of post-discharge resource needs. Conclusion
Numerous studies describe factors associated with an increased risk of readmission and adverse events after ED discharge, but few describe point-of-care tools used by physicians for the general ED population. Future work is needed to investigate standardized tools that assess ED discharge risk and patients’ needs upon ED discharge.
SUBMITTER: Jaffe T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8597698 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND: While Canadian ED physicians discharge most syncope patients with no specific further follow-up, approximately 5% will suffer serious outcomes after ED discharge. The goal of this study is to prospectively identify risk factors and to derive a clinical decision tool to accurately predict those at risk for serious outcomes after ED discharge within 30 days. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a prospective cohort study at 6 Canadian EDs to include adults with syncope and exclude patients with loss of consciousness>5 minutes, mental status changes from baseline, obvious witnessed seizure, or head trauma prior to syncope. Emergency physicians will collect standardized clinical variables including historical features, physical findings, and results of immediately available tests (blood, ECG, and ED cardiac monitoring) prior to ED discharge/hospital admission. A second emergency physician will evaluate approximately 10% of study patients for interobserver agreement calculation of predictor variables. The primary outcome will be a composite serious outcome occurring within 30 days of ED discharge and includes three distinct categories: serious adverse events (death, arrhythmia); identification of serious underlying disease (structural heart disease, aortic dissection, pulmonary embolism, severe pulmonary hypertension, subarachnoid hemorrhage, significant hemorrhage, myocardial infarction); or procedures to treat the cause of syncope. The secondary outcome will be any of the above serious outcomes either suspected or those occurring in the ED. A blinded Adjudication Committee will confirm all serious outcomes. Univariate analysis will be performed to compare the predictor variables in patients with and without primary outcome. Variables with p-values <0.2 and kappa values ? 0.60 will be selected for stepwise logistic regression to identify the risk factors and to develop the clinical decision tool. We will enroll 5,000 patients (with 125 positive for primary outcome) for robust identification of risk factors and clinical decision tool development. DISCUSSION: Once successfully developed, this tool will accurately risk-stratify adult syncope patients; however, validation and implementation will still be required. This program of research should lead to standardized care of syncope patients, and improve patient safety.
| S-EPMC4003802 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveThis scoping review assesses existing research on observation units, examining diagnoses, clinical outcomes, finances, and health system comparisons to identify knowledge gaps related to patients in dedicated emergency observation units.MethodsThe scoping review follows the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and was published prior to the review on Open Science Framework. Databases searched included MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase (Ovid), and CINAHL (Ebsco), with unpublished studies and gray literature identified via Web of Science. Articles were screened and extracted by two reviewers in Covidence. Any data or inclusion criteria inconsistencies were resolved through arbitration by a third researcher or by team consensus. Data were transferred to Excel for analysis.ResultsA total of 1061 studies were assessed for eligibility: 461 articles met study inclusion criteria and 433 were excluded for being abstracts only. Of these 461 articles, the majority focused on cardiac diagnoses (111/461, 24%) and adult populations (321/461, 70%) and are retrospective or cohort studies (241/461, 52%). Fifty-four articles (12%) belonged to expert opinion category. Length of stay (191/461, 41%) is the most common outcome measure followed by morbidity/mortality (189/461, 41%), admission/failure rate (169/461, 37%), and protocol assessments (120/461, 26%). Few articles focused on staff models and structure but 121 of 461 (26%) mentioned it. Note that 162 (35%) measured hospital finances, and 120 (26%) articles performed some direct comparison to other forms of observation.ConclusionWhile reimbursement and cardiac conditions are frequently assessed in emergency department observation unit literature, there is paucity of discussion on staffing models and other diagnoses remain less frequently explored. This review aims to spotlight future research areas in observation medicine.
| S-EPMC11315642 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients with a syncope constitute a challenge for risk stratification in (prehospital) emergency care. Professionals in EMS and ED need to differentiate the high-risk from the low-risk syncope patient, with limited time and resources. Clinical decision rules (CDRs) are designed to support professionals in risk stratification and clinical decision-making. Current CDRs seem unable to meet the standards to be used in the chain of emergency care. However, the need for a structured approach for syncope patients remains. We aimed to generate a broad overview of the available risk stratification tools and identify key elements, scoring systems and measurement properties of these tools.MethodsWe performed a scoping review with a literature search in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science from January 2010 to May 2022. Study selection was done by two researchers independently and was supervised by a third researcher. Data extraction was performed through a data extraction form, and data were summarised through descriptive synthesis. A quality assessment of included studies was performed using a generic quality assessment tool for quantitative research and the AMSTAR-2 for systematic reviews.ResultsThe literature search identified 5385 unique studies; 38 were included in the review. We discovered 19 risk stratification tools, one of which was established in EMS patient care. One-third of risk stratification tools have been validated. Two main approaches for the application of the tools were identified. Elements of the tools were categorised in history taking, physical examination, electrocardiogram, additional examinations and other variables. Evaluation of measurement properties showed that negative and positive predictive value was used in half of the studies to assess the accuracy of tools.ConclusionA total of 19 risk stratification tools for syncope patients were identified. They were primarily established in ED patient care; most are not validated properly. Key elements in the risk stratification related to a potential cardiac problem as cause for the syncope. These insights provide directions for the key elements of a risk stratification tool and for a more advanced process to validate risk stratification tools.
| S-EPMC10508018 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is increasing research interest in the risk stratification of emergency department (ED) syncope patients. A major barrier to comparing and synthesizing existing research is wide variation in the conduct and reporting of studies. The authors wanted to create standardized reporting guidelines for ED syncope risk-stratification research using an expert consensus process. In that pursuit, a panel of syncope researchers was convened and a literature review was performed to identify candidate reporting guideline elements. Candidate elements were grouped into four sections: eligibility criteria, outcomes, electrocardiogram (ECG) findings, and predictors. A two-round, modified Delphi consensus process was conducted using an Internet-based survey application. In the first round, candidate elements were rated on a five-point Likert scale. In the second round, panelists rerated items after receiving information about group ratings from the first round. Items that were rated by >80% of the panelists at the two highest levels of the Likert scale were included in the final guidelines. There were 24 panelists from eight countries who represented five clinical specialties. The panel identified an initial set of 183 candidate elements. After two survey rounds, the final reporting guidelines included 92 items that achieved >80% consensus. These included 10 items for study eligibility, 23 items for outcomes, nine items for ECG abnormalities, and 50 items for candidate predictors. Adherence to these guidelines should facilitate comparison of future research in this area.
| S-EPMC3376009 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vital signs are critical markers of illness severity in the emergency department (ED). Providers need to understand the abnormal vital signs in older adults that are problematic. We hypothesized that in patients age > 65 years discharged from the ED, there are abnormal vital signs that are associated with an admission to an inpatient bed within 7 days of discharge.We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from a regional integrated health system of members age > 65 years during the years 2009 to 2010. We used univariate contingency tables to assess the relationship between hospital admission within 7 days of discharge and vital sign (including systolic blood pressure [sBP], heart rate [HR], body temperature, and pulse oximetry [SpO2 ] values measured closest to discharge) using standard thresholds for abnormal and thresholds derived from the study data.Of 104,025 ED discharges, 4,638 (4.5%) were followed by inpatient admission within 7 days. Vital signs had a greater odds of admission beyond a single cutoff. The vital signs with at least twice the odds of admission were sBP < 97 mm Hg (odds ratio [OR] = 2.02, 95% CI = 1.57-2.60), HR > 101 beats/min (OR = 2.00 95% CI = 1.75-2.29), body temperature > 37.3°C (OR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.90-2.41), and pulse oximetry < 92 SpO2 (OR = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.55-2.68). Patients with two vital sign abnormalities per the analysis had the highest odds of admission. A majority of patients discharged with abnormal vital signs per the analysis were not admitted within 7 days of ED discharge.While we found a majority of patients discharged with abnormal vital signs as defined by the analysis, not to be admitted after discharge, we identified vital signs associated with at least twice the odds of admission.
| S-EPMC5935002 | biostudies-other
Project description:Introduction:The emergency department (ED) is an inherently high-risk setting. Risk scores can help practitioners understand the risk of ED patients for developing poor outcomes after discharge. Our objective was to develop two risk scores that predict either general inpatient admission or death/intensive care unit (ICU) admission within seven days of ED discharge. Methods:We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients age > 65 years using clinical data from a regional, integrated health system for years 2009-2010 to create risk scores to predict two outcomes, a general inpatient admission or death/ICU admission. We used logistic regression to predict the two outcomes based on age, body mass index, vital signs, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), ED length of stay (LOS), and prior inpatient admission. Results:Of 104,025 ED visit discharges, 4,638 (4.5%) experienced a general inpatient admission and 531 (0.5%) death or ICU admission within seven days of discharge. Risk factors with the greatest point value for either outcome were high CCI score and a prolonged ED LOS. The C-statistic was 0.68 and 0.76 for the two models. Conclusion:Risk scores were successfully created for both outcomes from an integrated health system, inpatient admission or death/ICU admission. Patients who accrued the highest number of points and greatest risk present to the ED with a high number of comorbidities and require prolonged ED evaluations.
| S-EPMC6123082 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Hospitalization for low-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) is common, expensive, and of questionable benefit. OBJECTIVE:The objective was to determine if low-risk PE patients discharged from the emergency department (ED) on rivaroxaban require fewer hospital days compared to standard of care (SOC). METHODS:Multicenter, open-label randomized trial in low-risk PE defined by Hestia criteria. Adult subjects were randomized to early ED discharge on rivaroxaban or SOC. Primary outcome was total number of initial hospital hours, plus hours of hospitalization for bleeding or venous thromboembolism (VTE), 30 days after randomization. A 90-day composite safety endpoint was defined as major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, and mortality. RESULTS:Of 114 randomized subjects, 51 were early discharge and 63 were SOC. Of 112 (98.2%) receiving at least one dose of study drug, 99 (86.8%) completed the study. Initial hospital LOS was 4.8 hours versus 33.6 hours, with a mean difference of -28.8 hours (95% confidence interval [CI] = -42.55 to -15.12 hours) for early discharge versus SOC, respectively. At 90 days, mean total hospital days (for any reason) were less for early discharge than SOC, 19.2 hours versus 43.2 hours, with a mean difference of 26.4 hours (95% CI = -46.97 to -3.34 hours). At 90 days, there were no bleeding events, recurrent VTE, or deaths. The composite safety endpoint was similar in both groups, with a difference in proportions of 0.005 (95% CI = -0.18 to 0.19). Total costs were $1,496 for early discharge and $4,234 for SOC, with a median difference of $2,496 (95% CI = -$2,999 to -$2,151). CONCLUSIONS:Low-risk ED PE patients receiving early discharge on rivaroxaban have similar outcomes to SOC, but fewer total hospital days and lower costs over 30 days.
| S-EPMC6175358 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOver the last two decades, Emergency Department (ED) crowding has become an increasingly common occurrence worldwide. Crowding is a complex and challenging issue that affects EDs' capacity to provide safe, timely and quality care. This review aims to map the research evidence provided by reviews to improve ED performance.Methods and findingsWe performed a scoping review, searching Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL and PubMed (from inception to July 9, 2019; prospectively registered in Open Science Framework https://osf.io/gkq4t/). Eligibility criteria were: (1) review of primary research studies, published in English; (2) discusses a) how performance is measured in the ED, b) interventions used to improve ED performance and their characteristics, c) the role(s) of patients in improving ED performance, and d) the outcomes attributed to interventions used to improve ED performance; (3) focuses on a hospital ED context in any country or healthcare system. Pairs of reviewers independently screened studies' titles, abstracts, and full-texts for inclusion according to pre-established criteria. Discrepancies were resolved via discussion. Independent reviewers extracted data using a tool specifically designed for the review. Pairs of independent reviewers explored the quality of included reviews using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tool. Narrative synthesis was performed on the 77 included reviews. Three reviews identified 202 individual indicators of ED performance. Seventy-four reviews reported 38 different interventions to improve ED performance: 27 interventions describing changes to practice and process (e.g., triage, care transitions, technology), and a further nine interventions describing changes to team composition (e.g., advanced nursing roles, scribes, pharmacy). Two reviews reported on two interventions addressing the role of patients in ED performance, supporting patients' decisions and providing education. The outcomes attributed to interventions used to improve ED performance were categorised into five key domains: time, proportion, process, cost, and clinical outcomes. Few interventions reported outcomes across all five outcome domains.ConclusionsED performance measurement is complex, involving automated information technology mechanisms and manual data collection, reflecting the multifaceted nature of ED care. Interventions to improve ED performance address a broad range of ED processes and disciplines.
| S-EPMC7296671 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Among patients who are discharged from the Emergency Department (ED), about 3% return within 30 days. Revisits can be related to the nature of the disease, medical errors, and/or inadequate diagnoses and treatment during their initial ED visit. Identification of high-risk patient population can help device new strategies for improved ED care with reduced ED utilization.A decision tree based model with discriminant Electronic Medical Record (EMR) features was developed and validated, estimating patient ED 30 day revisit risk. A retrospective cohort of 293,461 ED encounters from HealthInfoNet (HIN), Maine's Health Information Exchange (HIE), between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2012, was assembled with the associated patients' demographic information and one-year clinical histories before the discharge date as the inputs. To validate, a prospective cohort of 193,886 encounters between January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2013 was constructed. The c-statistics for the retrospective and prospective predictions were 0.710 and 0.704 respectively. Clinical resource utilization, including ED use, was analyzed as a function of the ED risk score. Cluster analysis of high-risk patients identified discrete sub-populations with distinctive demographic, clinical and resource utilization patterns.Our ED 30-day revisit model was prospectively validated on the Maine State HIN secure statewide data system. Future integration of our ED predictive analytics into the ED care work flow may lead to increased opportunities for targeted care intervention to reduce ED resource burden and overall healthcare expense, and improve outcomes.
| S-EPMC4231082 | biostudies-literature
Project description:For patients with chest pain who are deemed clinically to be low risk and discharged home from the emergency department (ED), it is unclear whether further laboratory tests can improve risk stratification. Here, we investigated the utility of a clinical chemistry score (CCS), which comprises plasma glucose, the estimated glomerular filtration rate, and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (I or T) to generate a common score for risk stratification. In a cohort of 14,676 chest pain patients in the province of Ontario, Canada and who were discharged home from the ED (November 2012-February 2013 and April 2013-September 2015) we evaluated the CCS as a risk stratification tool for all-cause mortality, plus hospitalization for myocardial infarction or unstable angina (primary outcome) at 30, 90, and 365 days post-discharge using Cox proportional hazard models. At 30 days the primary outcome occurred in 0.3% of patients with a CCS < 2 (n = 6404), 0.9% of patients with a CCS = 2 (n = 4336), and 2.3% of patients with a CCS > 2 (n = 3936) (p < 0.001). At 90 days, patients with CCS < 2 (median age = 52y (IQR = 46-60), 59.4% female) had an adjusted HR = 0.51 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.32-0.82) for the composite outcome and patients with a CCS > 2 (median age = 74y (IQR = 64-82), 48.0% female) had an adjusted HR = 2.80 (95%CI = 1.98-3.97). At 365 days, 1.3%, 3.4%, and 11.1% of patients with a CCS < 2, 2, or >2 respectively, had the composite outcome (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the CCS can risk stratify chest pain patients discharged home from the ED and identifies both low- and high-risk patients who may warrant different medical care.
| S-EPMC7565964 | biostudies-literature