Characteristics of ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients Who Do Not Undergo Percutaneous Coronary Intervention After Prehospital Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Activation

Designing and developing a digital equity dashboard for the emergency department

Disparities in diagnosis, treatment, and health outcomes of racial minorities are well documented in the emergency department (ED). Although EDs may provide broad departmental feedback on clinical metrics, lack of up-to-date monitoring and data availability present significant challenges to identifying and addressing patterns of inequitable care. To address this issue, we developed an online "Equity Dashboard," incorporating data that is updated daily from our electronic medical record to highlight demographic, clinical, and operational variables, stratified by age, race, ethnicity, and language, and sexual orientation, gender identity. Through an iterative design thinking process, we created data visualizations for an interactive interface that tells a story about the ED patient's experience and enables any staff to explore up-to-date trends in patient care. To assess and improve usability of the dashboard, we conducted a survey of end-users using custom questions, as well as the System Usability Scale and Net Promoter Score, both of which are validated health technology use instruments. The Equity Dashboard is of particular use for quality improvement initiatives, as it reflects common departmental challenges including delays in clinician events, inpatient boarding, and throughput metrics. This digital tool further helps demonstrate how these operational factors differentially affect our diverse patient population. The dashboard ultimately enables the ED team to measure current performance, to identify our vulnerabilities, and to design targeted interventions to address disparities in clinical care.

Utility of prehospital electrocardiogram interpretation in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction utilizing computer interpretation and transmission for interventional cardiologist consultation

Objectives

We examined the appropriateness of prehospital cardiac catheter laboratory activation (CCL‐A) in ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) utilizing the University of Glasgow algorithm (UGA) and remote interventional cardiologist consultation.

Background

The incremental benefit of prehospital electrocardiogram (PH‐ECG) transmission on the diagnostic accuracy and appropriateness of CCL‐A has been examined in a small number of studies with conflicting results.

Methods

We identified consecutive PH‐ECG transmissions between June 2, 2010 and October 6, 2016. Blinded adjudication of ECGs, appropriateness of CCL‐A, and index diagnoses were performed using the fourth universal definition of MI. The primary outcome was the appropriate CCL‐A rate. Secondary outcomes included rates of false‐positive CCL‐A, inappropriate CCL‐A, and inappropriate CCL nonactivation.

Results

Among 1088 PH‐ECG transmissions, there were 565 (52%) CCL‐As and 523 (48%) CCL nonactivations. The appropriate CCL‐A rate was 97% (550 of 565 CCL‐As), of which 4.9% (n = 27) were false‐positive. The inappropriate CCL‐A rate was 2.7% (15 of 565 CCL‐As) and the inappropriate CCL nonactivation rate was 3.6% (19 of 523 CCL nonactivations). Reasons for appropriate CCL nonactivation (n = 504) included nondiagnostic ST‐segment elevation (n = 128, 25%), bundle branch block (n = 132, 26%), repolarization abnormality (n = 61, 12%), artefact (n = 72, 14%), no ischemic symptoms (n = 32, 6.3%), severe comorbidities (n = 26, 5.2%), transient ST‐segment elevation (n = 20, 4.0%), and others.

Conclusions

PH‐ECG interpretation utilizing UGA with interventional cardiologist consultation accurately identified STEMI with low rates of inappropriate and false‐positive CCL‐As, whereas using UGA alone would have almost doubled CCL‐As. The benefits of cardiologist consultation were identifying “masquerading” STEMI and avoiding unnecessary CCL‐As.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Hospital Admissions of Emergency Department COVID-19 Patients

BACKGROUND

Several studies have found that among patients testing positive for COVID-19 within a health care system, non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients are more likely than non-Hispanic White patients to be hospitalized. However, previous studies have looked at odds of being admitted using all positive tests in the system and not only those seeking care in the emergency department (ED).

OBJECTIVE

This study examined racial/ethnic differences in COVID-19 hospitalizations and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions among patients seeking care for COVID-19 in the ED.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Electronic health records (n=7549) were collected from COVID-19 confirmed patients that visited an ED of an urban health care system in the Chicago area between March 2020 and February 2021.

RESULTS

After adjusting for possible confounders, White patients had 2.2 times the odds of being admitted to the hospital and 1.5 times the odds of being admitted to the ICU than Black patients. There were no observed differences between White and Hispanic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

White patients were more likely than Black patients to be hospitalized after presenting to the ED with COVID-19 and more likely to be admitted directly to the ICU. This finding may be due to racial/ethnic differences in severity of disease upon ED presentation, racial and ethnic differences in access to COVID-19 primary care and/or implicit bias impacting clinical decision-making.

Cancellation of the Cardiac Catheterization Lab After Activation for ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Prehospital ECG-based cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) activation for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction reduces door-to-balloon times, but CCL cancellations (CCL^X) remain a challenging problem. We examined the reasons for CCL^X, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of patients presenting as ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction activations who receive emergent coronary angiography (EA) compared with CCL^X.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We reviewed all consecutive CCL activations between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2014 (n=1332). Data were analyzed comparing 2 groups stratified as EA (n=466) versus CCL^X (n=866; 65%). Reasons for CCL^X included bundle branch block (21%), poor-quality prehospital ECG (18%), non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction ST changes (18%), repolarization abnormality (13%), and arrhythmia (8%). A multivariate logistic regression model using age, peak troponin, and initial ECG findings had a high discriminatory value for determining EA versus CCL^X (C statistic, 0.985). CCL^X subjects were older and more likely to be women, have prior coronary artery bypass grafting, or a paced rhythm ( P<0.0001 for all). All-cause mortality did not differ between groups at 1 year or during the study period (mean follow-up, 2.186±1.167 years; 15.8% EA versus 16.2% CCL^X; P=0.9377). Cardiac death was higher in the EA group (11.8% versus 3.0%; P<0.0001). After adjusting for clinical variables associated with survival, CCL^X was associated with an increased risk for all-cause mortality during the study period (hazard ratio, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.28-2.59; P=0.0009).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, prehospital ECG without overreading or transmission lead to frequent CCL^X. CCL^X subjects differ with regard to age, sex, risk factors, and comorbidities. However, CCL^X patients represent a high-risk population, with frequently positive cardiac enzymes and similar short- and long-term mortality compared with EA. Further studies are needed to determine how quality improvement initiatives can lower the rates of CCL^X and influence clinical outcomes.

A Systematic Review of the Impact of Physician Implicit Racial Bias on Clinical Decision Making

OBJECTIVES

Disparities in diagnosis and treatment of racial minorities exist in the emergency department (ED). A better understanding of how physician implicit (unconscious) bias contributes to these disparities may help identify ways to eliminate such racial disparities. The objective of this systematic review was to examine and summarize the evidence on the association between physician implicit racial bias and clinical decision making.

METHODS

Based on PRISMA guidelines, a structured electronic literature search of PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and PsycINFO databases was conducted. Eligible studies were those that: 1) included physicians, 2) included the Implicit Association Test as a measure of implicit bias, 3) included an assessment of physician clinical decision making, and 4) were published in peer-reviewed journals between 1998 and 2016. Articles were reviewed for inclusion by two independent investigators. Data extraction was performed by one investigator and checked for accuracy by a second investigator. Two investigators independently scored the quality of articles using a modified version of the Downs and Black checklist.

RESULTS

Of the 1,154 unique articles identified in the initial search, nine studies (n = 1,910) met inclusion criteria. Three of the nine studies involved emergency providers including residents, attending physicians, and advanced practice providers. The majority of studies used clinical vignettes to examine clinical decision making. Studies that included emergency medicine (EM) providers had vignettes relating to treatment of acute myocardial infarction, pain, and pediatric asthma. An implicit preference favoring white people was common across providers, regardless of specialty. Two of the nine studies found evidence of a relationship between implicit bias and clinical decision making; one of these studies included EM providers. This one study found that EM and internal medicine residents who demonstrated an implicit preference for white individuals were more likely to treat white patients and not black patients with thrombolysis for myocardial infarction. Evidence from the two studies reporting a relationship between physician implicit racial bias and decision making was low in quality.

CONCLUSIONS

The current literature indicates that although many physicians, regardless of specialty, demonstrate an implicit preference for white people, this bias does not appear to impact their clinical decision making. Further studies on the impact of implicit racial bias on racial disparities in ED treatment are needed.

False Activations for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

First-medical-contact-to-device (FMC2D) times have improved over the past decade, as have clinical outcomes for patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, with improvements in FMC2D times, false activation of the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) has become a challenging problem. The authors define false activation as any patient who does not warrant emergent coronary angiography for STEMI. In addition to clinical outcome measures for these patients, STEMI systems should collect data regarding the total number of CCL activations, the total number of emergency coronary angiograms, and the number revascularization procedures performed.

Do Gender and Race Make a Difference in Acute Coronary Syndrome Pretest Probabilities in the Emergency Department?

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to test for significant differences in subjective and objective pretest probabilities for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in a large cohort of chest pain patients stratified by race or gender. Secondarily we wanted to test for any differences in rates of ACS, rates of 90-day returns, cost, and chest radiation exposure after these stratifications.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of a prospective outcomes study of ED patients with chest pain and shortness of breath. We performed two separate analyses. The data set was divided by gender for analysis 1 while the analysis 2 stratification was made by race (nonwhite vs. white). For each analysis, groups were compared on several variables: provider visual analog scales (VAS) for likelihood of ACS, PREtest Consult ACS probabilities, rates of ACS, total radiation exposure to the chest, total costs at 30 days, and 90-day recidivism (ED, overnight observations, and inpatient admissions).

RESULTS

A total of 844 patients were studied. Gender information was present on all 844 subjects, while complete race/ethnicity information was available on 783 (93%) subjects. For the first analysis, female patients made up 57% (478/844) of the population and their mean provider VAS scores for ACS were significantly lower (p = 0.000) at 14% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 13% to 16%) than that of males at 22% (95% CI = 19% to 24%). This was consistent with the objective pretest ACS probabilities subsequently calculated via the validated online tool, PREtest Consult, which were also significantly lower (p = 0.000) at 2.7% (95% CI = 2.4% to 3.1%) for females versus 6.6% (95% CI = 5.9% to 7.3%) for males. However, comparing females to males, there was no significant difference in diagnosis of ACS (3.6% vs. 1.6%), mean chest radiation doses (5.0 mSv vs. 4.9 mSv), total costs at 30 days ($3,451.24 vs. $3,847.68), or return to the ED within 90 days (26% each). For analysis 2 by race, nonwhite patients also comprised 57% (444/783) of individuals. Similar to the gender analysis, mean provider VAS scores for ACS were found to be significantly lower (p = 0.000) at 15% (95% CI = 13% to 16%) for nonwhite versus 20% (95% CI = 18% to 23%) for white subjects. Concordantly, objective pretest ACS probabilities were also significantly lower (p = 0.000) at 3.4% (95% CI = 2.9% to 3.9%) for nonwhite versus 5.3% (95% CI = 4.7% to 5.9%) for white subjects. There were no significant differences in outcomes in nonwhite versus white subjects when compared on diagnosis of ACS (3.2% vs 2.4%), mean chest radiation dose (4.6 mSv vs. 5.0 mSv), cost ($3,156.02 vs. $2,885.18), or 90-day ED returns (28% vs. 23%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite consistently estimating the risk for ACS to be lower for both females and minorities concordantly with calculated objective pretest assessments, there does not appear to have been any significant decrease in subsequent evaluation of these perceived lower-risk groups when radiation exposure and costs are taken into account. Further studies on the impact of pretest assessments on gender and racial disparities in ED chest pain evaluation are needed.