Rapid referral for headache management from Emergency Department to Headache Centre: four years data

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Negro ◽  
Valerio Spuntarelli ◽  
Paolo Sciattella ◽  
Paolo Martelletti
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Adequate Treatment ◽  
Inappropriate Use ◽  
Headache Centre ◽  
Headache Management ◽  
Medical Bills ◽  
Head Computed Tomography ◽  
Unnecessary Testing ◽  
Discharge Length

Abstract Background Headache is one of the most common reason for medical consultation to emergency department (ED). Inappropriate use of ED for non-urgent conditions is a problem in terms of crowding emergency facilities, unnecessary testing and treatment, increased medical bills, burden on medical service providers and weaker patient-primary care provider relationships. The aim of this study was to analyzed the different steps of the ED management of patients with headache to detect those deficiencies that can be overcome by a prompt referral to a headache clinic.Methods The study is a retrospective analysis of the electronic medical records (EMRs) of patients discharged from an academic ED between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2018 and referred to the tertiary level headache centre of the same hospital. We analyzed all the aspects related to the permanence in ED and we also assessed if there was a concordance between ED diagnosis and ours.Results Among our sample of 244 patients, 76.2% were admitted as green tag, 75% underwent a head computed tomography, 19.3% received neurological consultation, 43% did not receive any pharmacological treatment and 62.7% still had headache at discharge. Length in ED stay was associated with the complaint of the first aura ever (p = 0.014) and if patients received consultations (p < 0.001). Concordance analysis shown a significant moderate agreement only for the diagnosis of migraine and only between triage and headache centre.Conclusions The majority of patients who went to the ED complaining of headache received the same therapy regardless of their diagnosis and in many cases the headache had not yet resolved at the time of discharge. Given the several shortcomings of ED management of headaches, a rapid referral to the headache centre is of primary importance to help the patient obtain a definite diagnosis and adequate treatment.

scholarly journals Rapid referral for headache management from Emergency Department to Headache Centre: four years data

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Negro ◽  
Valerio Spuntarelli ◽  
Paolo Sciattella ◽  
Paolo Martelletti
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Inappropriate Use ◽  
Headache Centre ◽  
Appropriate Treatment ◽  
Headache Management ◽  
Headache Clinic ◽  
The Many ◽  
Head Computed Tomography ◽  
Made In

Abstract Background Headache is one of the most common reason for medical consultation to emergency department (ED). The inappropriate use of ED for non-emergency conditions is a problem in terms of overcrowding of emergency facilities, unnecessary testing and treatment, increased medical costs, burden on medical service providers and weaker relationships between patient and primary care provider. The aim of this study was to analyze the different stages of ED management of headache to identify those deficiencies that can be overcome by a fast referral to a headache clinic. Methods The study is a retrospective analysis of the electronic medical records of patients discharged from an academic ED between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2018 and referred to the tertiary level headache centre of the same hospital. We analyzed all aspects related to the permanence in ED and also assessed whether there was a match between the diagnosis made in ED and ours. Results Among our sample of 244 patients, 76.2% were admitted as “green tag”, 75% underwent a head computed tomography, 19.3% received a neurological consultation, 43% did not receive any pharmacological treatment and 62.7% still had headache at discharge. The length of stay in ED was associated with reportin the first aura ever (p = 0.014) and whether patients received consultations (p < 0.001). The concordance analysis shown a significant moderate agreement only for the diagnosis of migraine and only between triage and headache centre. Conclusions Most patients who went to ED complaining of headache received the same treatment regardless of their diagnosis and in many cases the headache had not yet resolved at the time of discharge. Given the many shortcomings in headache management in ED, rapid referral to the headache centre is of paramount importance to help the patient achieve a definiteve diagnosis and appropriate treatment.

scholarly journals Rapid referral for headache management from emergency department to headache centre: four years data

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Negro ◽  
Valerio Spuntarelli ◽  
Paolo Sciattella ◽  
Paolo Martelletti
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Headache Centre ◽  
Headache Management

Feedback to Emergency Medical Services Providers: The Good, the Bad, and the Ignored

1997 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabeth F. Mock ◽  
Keith D. Wrenn ◽  
Seth W. Wright ◽  
T. Chadwick Eustis ◽  
Corey M. Slovis
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Emergency Medical Services ◽  
Emergency Medical Service ◽  
Medical Service ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Medical Services ◽  
Emergency Medical Service System ◽  
Constructive Feedback ◽  
Emergency Medical ◽  
Emergency Medical Service Provider

AbstractHypothesis:To determine the type and frequency of immediate unsolicited feedback received by emergency medical service (EMS) providers from patients or their family members and emergency department (ED) personnel.Methods:Prospective, observational study of 69 emergency medical services providers in an urban emergency medical service system and 12 metropolitan emergency departments. Feedback was rated by two medical student observers using a prospectively devised original scale.Results:In 295 encounters with patients or family, feedback was rated as follows: 1) none in 224 (76%); 2) positive in 51 (17%); 3) negative in 19 (6%); and 4) mixed in one (<1%). Feedback from 254 encounters with emergency department personnel was rated as: 1) none in 185 (73%); 2) positive in 46 (18%); 3) negative in 21 (8%); and 4) mixed in 2 (1%). Patients who had consumed alcohol were more likely to give negative feedback than were patients who had not consumed alcohol. Feedback from emergency department personnel occurred more often when the emergency medical service provider considered the patient to be critically ill.Conclusion:The two groups provided feedback to emergency medical service providers in approximately one quarter of the calls. When feedback was provided, it was positive more than twice as often as it was negative. Emergency physicians should give regular and constructive feedback to emergency medical services providers more often than currently is the case.

scholarly journals Management of Primary Headache in the Emergency Department

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Pescatore
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Symptom Relief ◽  
Disease Process ◽  
Primary Headache ◽  
Overwhelming Majority ◽  
Diagnostic Process ◽  
Primary Headaches ◽  
Emergency Setting ◽  
Headache Management ◽  
Headache Patients

Headache is a common presentation to emergency departments (EDs), comprising nearly 4% of all ED admissions.‎1 While the overwhelming majority of patients present with a primary headache disorder, particularly migraine, the emergency physician’s role calls for the simultaneous exclusion of severe or life-threatening pathology while providing judicious and effective symptom relief.‎2 Notably, recent investigations suggest that this dual mandate performs well, excluding more than 99% of conditions resulting in serious adverse neurologic sequelae, though at the cost of high-frequency and low-yield advanced imaging utilization.‎3‎, 4 While a comprehensive understanding of the diagnostic process and underlying pathophysiology associated with headache disorders is critical for the emergency clinician, this review is meant to chiefly describe the treatment of primary headache and the variety, efficacy, and indications of those interventions. While individual headache type classification can be helpful in targeting approach or therapy, diagnosis can be difficult in the emergency setting, and primary headaches of most types are often approached similarly in the ED. Interestingly, the overwhelming majority of patients who present to an emergency department with acute primary headache have migraine, but the majority of patients receive a less specific diagnosis and a treatment that is correspondingly nonspecific.‎5 Importantly, however, the dynamic, diverse, and unique nature of different headache presentations to the ED make an algorithmic or step-wise approach to headache management ill-advised. The emergency practitioner must have a working knowledge of the array of treatment options available and apply therapies in a considered and informed manner. Following effective analgesia, however, the most important intervention emergency physicians can deliver for their headache patients is to connect them with outpatient physicians savvy about headache management, who will then provide these headache patients with appropriate acute therapeutics, initiate preventive therapy and provide anticipatory guidance about their disease process.‎6

Abstract 309: Prediction Chart for Neurological Outcomes of Elderly Patients with Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest and the Corresponding Time to Termination of Resuscitation: Evidence from a Japanese Nationwide Population-based Cohort Study

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Akira Funada ◽  
Yoshikazu Goto ◽  
Masayuki Takamura
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Case Scenario ◽  
Worst Case ◽  
Neurological Outcomes ◽  
Shockable Rhythm ◽  
Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Introduction: Neurological outcomes and the appropriate duration from call receipt to termination of resuscitation (TOR) in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) could differ according to patient characteristics. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that a prediction chart comprising prehospital variables, including age, could be useful for predicting neurological outcomes and determining the time to TOR in the field or at the emergency department. Methods: We evaluated 19,829 elderly patients with OHCA (age ≥65 years) of cardiac origin who achieved prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Data were obtained from the prospectively recorded All-Japan Utstein Registry between 2011 and 2016. Patients with OHCA witnessed by emergency medical service providers were excluded. The primary outcome was 1-month neurologically intact survival, defined as a cerebral performance category (CPC) score of 1-2. Patients with OHCA were divided into 12 groups according to shockable rhythm (YES/NO), witness status (YES/NO), and age (65-74, 75-89, or ≥90 years). The time from call receipt to ROSC was calculated and categorized by 5-min intervals. The time from call receipt to ROSC at which the probability of 1-month CPC 1-2 decreased to <1% was defined as the call to TOR duration. Results: The overall 1-month CPC 1-2 rate was 18.9% (n = 3,756). When stratified by patient characteristics, the 1-month CPC 1-2 rates ranged from 52.3% in patients aged 65-74 years with shockable rhythm and witnessed OHCA (best-case scenario) to 1.6% in patients aged ≥90 years with non-shockable rhythm and un-witnessed OHCA (worst-case scenario). The corresponding call to TOR duration ranged from 35 to 10 min (Table). Conclusions: Neurological outcomes and the appropriate call to TOR duration differed according to patient characteristics, including age. Our prediction chart for elderly patients with OHCA could be useful for determining TOR in the field or at the emergency department.

Overdosing the Overdosed

2020 ◽  
pp. 211-218
Author(s):  
Pat Croskerry
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Head Injury ◽  
Medication Error ◽  
General Hospital ◽  
Middle Aged ◽  
Fundamental Attribution Error ◽  
Inappropriate Use ◽  
Laboratory Error ◽  
Toxic Drug ◽  
History Of

In this case, a middle-aged male presents to the emergency department (ED) of a general hospital with dizziness and weakness and a history of falling the previous day associated with seizures. There is also a possibility of head injury. He is well known to the department and has been seen previously by the head of the department regarding inappropriate use of the ED. Some difficulty ensues in terms of whether he has been having seizures or not, which, combined with a medication error and a laboratory error, results in him being overdosed with a significantly toxic drug. The case is an example of groupthink as well as fundamental attribution error.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document