Beyond triage: the diagnostic accuracy of emergency department nursing staff risk assessment in patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes

Effect of a Senior Cardiology Nursing Role on Streamlining Assessment of Emergency Cardiology Presentations During COVID-19: An Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

The Emergency Cardiology Coordinator (ECC) was a senior nursing role implemented from 14 April 2020 to 15 September 2020 at the Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service in South-East Queensland, Australia to streamline and expedite assessment of patients presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) with suspected cardiac problems. ECC implementation occurred in the context of the emergence of COVID-19. Evaluation of the impact of the ECC role focussed primarily on the time interval from triage to cardiology consult (TTCC).

METHODS

ED and Cardiology Department data were extracted from electronic medical records for the period 2 September 2019 to 1 March 2021. The TTCC for each presenting problem (chest pain, palpitations, shortness of breath, altered level of consciousness) was compared between patients seen by the ECC and those not seen on the days the ECC worked. The effect of COVID-19 on TTCC was assessed by an interrupted time series analysis. Data recorded by the ECC included patients seen and interventions provided.

RESULTS

The ECC saw 378 patients. Most presented with chest pain (269/378, 71.2%). The ECC determined that 68.8% (260/378) required a cardiac assessment. Following COVID-19 the median weekly TTCC increased by 0.029 hours (1.74 min) each week on average relative to that beforehand (p=0.008). For patients seen by the ECC the median TTCC was 2.07 hours (interquartile range [IQR]: 1.44, 3.16) compared to 2.58 hours (IQR: 1.73, 3.80; p=0.007) for patients not seen by the ECC. Chest pain (ECC: 1.94 hours; no ECC: 2.41 hours; p=0.06) and non-obvious cardiac presenting problems (ECC: 1.77 hours; no ECC 3.05 hours; p=0.004) displayed the largest reductions in TTCC when the ECC was involved. Presentations with palpitations, respiratory distress and altered level of consciousness had similar TTCCs.

CONCLUSION

The ECC role resulted in an overall decrease in TTCC despite the role coinciding with the emergence of COVID-19. In order to clarify the optimal strategy for the ECC role, further analyses involving patient risk factors and presenting problems along with a health economic evaluation of this model of care and the effect on patient outcomes will be required.

Evidence That Nurses Need to Participate in Diagnosis: Lessons From Malpractice Claims

OBJECTIVES

There is a pressing need for nurses to contribute as equals to the diagnostic process. The purpose of this article is twofold: (a) to describe the contributing factors in diagnosis-related and failure-to-monitor malpractice claims in which nurses are named the primary responsible party and (b) to describe actions healthcare leaders can take to enhance the role of nurses in diagnosis.

METHODS

We conducted a review of the Controlled Risk Insurance Company Strategies' repository of malpractice claims, which contain approximately 30% of United States claims. We analyzed the malpractice claims related to diagnosis (n = 139) and physiologic monitoring (n = 647) naming nurses as the primary responsible party from 2007 to 2016. We used logistic regression to determine the association of contributing factors to likelihood of death, indemnity, and expenses incurred.

RESULTS

Diagnosis-related cases listing communication among providers as a contributing factor were associated with a significantly higher likelihood of death (odds ratio [OR] = 3.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.50-6.03). Physiologic monitoring cases listing communication among providers as a contributing factor were associated with significantly higher likelihood of death (OR = 2.21, 95% CI = 1.49-3.27), higher indemnity incurred (U.S. $86,781, 95% CI = $18,058-$175,505), and higher expenses incurred (U.S. $20,575, 95% CI = $3685-$37,465).

CONCLUSIONS

Nurses are held legally accountable for their role in diagnosis. Raising system-wide awareness of the critical role and responsibility of nurses in the diagnostic process and enhancing nurses' knowledge and skill to fulfill those responsibilities are essential to improving diagnosis.

Diagnosis and risk stratification of chest pain patients in the emergency department: focus on acute coronary syndromes. A position paper of the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association

This paper provides an update on the European Society of Cardiology task force report on the management of chest pain. Its main purpose is to provide an update on the decision algorithms and diagnostic pathways to be used in the emergency department for the assessment and triage of patients with chest pain symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndromes.

The impact of an innovative curriculum to introduce patient safety and quality improvement content

BACKGROUND

The Fuld Fellows Program provides selected pre-licensure nursing students with a foundation in the science of patient safety, quality improvement and leadership through coursework and a mentored experience working on a quality improvement project. We evaluated this program's impact on Fellows' patient safety competence and systems thinking.

METHODS

Cohorts I-VI (n = 116) completed pre-post program evaluation that included measurement of patient safety competence through the Health Professional Education in Patient Safety Survey (H-PEPSS) and systems thinking using the Systems Thinking Scale. Pre- and post-program H-PEPSS and Systems Thinking Scale scores were compared using the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test. The Fellows were compared to non-Fellows on patient safety competence and systems thinking using t-tests.

RESULTS

Patient safety competence on all H-PEPSS scales improved from baseline to end of program: teamwork (2.6 to 3.1), communication (2.1 to 3.2), managing risk (2.2 to 3.3), human environment (2.8 to 3.7), recognize and respond to risk (2.7 to 3.6), and culture (2.9 to 3.8) (p < 0.05). The Fellows, in comparison to the non-Fellows, reported a significantly higher (p < 0.05) mean change score in five of the six H-PEPSS subscales. Fellows' mean systems thinking score increased from 66 ± 7 at baseline to 70 ± 6 at program completion (p < 0.05), this mean post completion score was significantly higher than the non-Fellows reported mean STS score of 62 ± 7.

CONCLUSION

The Fuld Fellows Program effectively facilitated patient safety and quality improvement and systems thinking learning among pre-licensure nursing students. This program can serve as a model for integrating quality and safety concepts into health professionals' curricula.

Do all HEART Scores beat the same: evaluating the interoperator reliability of the HEART Score

Background

Patients presenting with chest pain represent a significant proportion of attendances to the ED. The History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors and Troponin (HEART) Score is validated for the risk stratification of suspected ischaemic chest pain within the ED. The goal of this research was to establish the interoperator reliability of the HEART Score as performed in the ED by different grades of doctor and nurse.

Methodology

Patients with suspected ischaemic chest pain presenting to the ED of an inner city, London Hospital, were recruited prospectively between January and May 2016. Patients that had been enrolled in the study were interviewed by clinicians from four different categories: senior doctor, junior doctor, senior nurse and junior nurse. Clinicians, blinded to other raters’ results, calculated the HEART Scores for each patient with the assistance of a pocket-sized HEART Score card. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated as the primary measure of reliability. 120 patients were required to achieve a desired power of 80%.

Results

88 complete comparisons were obtained. There were no significant differences between the distributions of HEART Scores for each clinician group (p=0.95). The ICC for the overall HEART Score was 0.91 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.93). The ICC for troponin and age were ‘1’, for ‘history’ 0.41 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.52), ‘ECG’ 0.64 (95% CI 0.54 to0.73) and ‘risk factors’ 0.84 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.89).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates very strong overall interoperator reliability between the four groups of clinicians studied. This suggests that the HEART Score is reproducible when used by different professional groups and grade of clinician.

Sensitivity and specificity of the Manchester Triage System in risk prioritization of patients with acute myocardial infarction who present with chest pain

Background:

The purpose of the Manchester Triage System is to clinically prioritize each patient seeking care in an emergency department. Patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction who have typical symptoms including chest pain should be classified in the highest priority groups, requiring immediate medical assistance or care within 10 min. As such, the Manchester Triage System should present adequate sensitivity and specificity.

Aims:

This study estimated the sensitivity and specificity of the Manchester Triage System in the triage of patients with chest pain related to the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, and the associations between the performance of the Manchester Triage System and selected variables.

Methods:

This was an observational, analytical, cross-sectional, retrospective study. The sensitivity and specificity of the Manchester Triage System were estimated by verifying the triage classification received by these patients and their established medical diagnoses.

Results:

The sample was composed of 10,087 triage episodes, in which 139 (1.38%) patients had a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. In 49 episodes, confirmation of medical diagnosis was not possible. The estimated sensitivity of the Manchester Triage System was 44.60% (36.18–53.27%) and the estimated specificity was 91.30% (90.73–91.85%). Of the 10,038 episodes in which the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction was confirmed or excluded, 938 patients (9.34%) received an incorrect classification – undertriage or overtriage.

Conclusion:

This study showed that the specificity of the Manchester Triage System was very good. However, the low sensitivity based on the Manchester Triage System indicated that patients in high priority categories were undertriaged, leading to longer wait times and associated increased risks of adverse events.

Defining the critical role of nurses in diagnostic error prevention: a conceptual framework and a call to action

Nurses have always been involved in the diagnostic process, but there remains a pervasive view across physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals that medical diagnosis is solely a physician responsibility. There is an urgent need to adjust this view and for nurses to take part in leading efforts addressing diagnostic errors. The purpose of this article is to define a framework for nursing engagement in the diagnostic process that can serve as a catalyst for nurses to engage in eliminating preventable harms from diagnostic error. We offer a conceptual model to formalize and expand nurses’ engagement in the diagnostic process through education, maximize effectiveness of interprofessional teamwork and communication through culture change, and leverage the nursing mission to empower patients to become active members of the diagnostic team. We describe the primary barriers, including culture, education, operations, and regulations, to nurses participating as full, equal members of the diagnostic team, and illustrate our approach to addressing these barriers. Nurses already play a major role in diagnosis and increasingly take ownership of this role, removing barriers will strengthen nurses’ ability to be equal, integral diagnostic team members. This model should serve as a foundation for increasing the role of the nurse in the diagnostic process, and calling nurses to take action in leading efforts to reduce diagnostic error.

Assessing sensitivity and specificity of the Manchester Triage System in the evaluation of acute coronary syndrome in adult patients in emergency care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Triage is the first assessment and sorting process used to prioritize patients arriving in the emergency department (ED). As a triage tool, the Manchester Triage System (MTS) must have a high sensitivity to minimize the occurrence of under-triage, but must not compromise specificity to avoid the occurrence of overtriage. Sensitivity and specificity of the MTS can be calculated using the frequency of appropriately assigned clinical priority levels for patients presenting to the ED. However, although there are well established criteria for the prioritization of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS), several studies have reported difficulties when evaluating patients with this condition.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review was to synthesize the best available evidence on assessing the sensitivity and specificity of the MTS for screening high-level priority adult patients presenting to the ED with ACS.

METHOD

The current review considered studies that evaluated the use of the MTS in the risk classification of adult patients in the ED. In this review, studies that investigated the priority level, as established by the MTS to screen patients under suspicion of ACS or the sensitivity and specificity of the MTS, for screening patients before the medical diagnosis of ACS were included. This review included both experimental and epidemiological study designs.

RESULTS

The results were presented in a narrative synthesis. Six studies were appraised by the independent reviewers. All appraised studies enrolled a consecutive or random sample of patients and presented an overall moderate methodological quality, and all of them were included in this review. A total of 54,176 participants were included in the six studies. All studies were retrospective. Studies included in this review varied in content and data reporting. Only two studies reported sensitivity and specificity values or all the necessary data to calculate sensitivity and specificity. The remaining four studies presented either a sensitivity analysis or the number of true positives and false negatives. However, these four studies were conducted considering only data from patients diagnosed with ACS. Sensitivity values were relatively uniform among the studies: 0.70-0.80. A specificity of 0.59 was reported in the study including only patients with non-traumatic chest pain. On the other hand, in the study that included patients with any complaint, the specificity of MTS to screen patients with ACS was 0.97.

CONCLUSION

The current review demonstrates that the MTS has a moderate sensitivity to evaluate patients with ACS. This may compromise time to treatment in the ED, an important variable in the prognosis of ACS. Atypical presentation of ACS, or high specificity, may also explain the moderate sensitivity demonstrated in this review. However, because of minimal data, it is not possible to confirm this hypothesis. It is difficult to determine the acceptable level of sensitivity or specificity to ensure that a certain triage system is safe.