A study to derive a clinical decision rule for triage of emergency department patients with chest pain: design and methodology

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Chest pain is the second most common chief complaint in North American emergency departments. Data from the U.S. suggest that 2.1% of patients with acute myocardial infarction and 2.3% of patients with unstable angina are misdiagnosed, with slightly higher rates reported in a recent Canadian study (4.6% and 6.4%, respectively). Information obtained from the history, 12-lead ECG, and a single set of cardiac enzymes is unable to identify patients who are safe for early discharge with sufficient sensitivity. The 2007 ACC/AHA guidelines for UA/NSTEMI do not identify patients at low risk for adverse cardiac events who can be safely discharged without provocative testing. As a result large numbers of low risk patients are triaged to chest pain observation units and undergo provocative testing, at significant cost to the healthcare system. Clinical decision rules use clinical findings (history, physical exam, test results) to suggest a diagnostic or therapeutic course of action. Currently no methodologically robust clinical decision rule identifies patients safe for early discharge.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>The goal of this study is to derive a clinical decision rule which will allow emergency physicians to accurately identify patients with chest pain who are safe for early discharge. The study will utilize a prospective cohort design. Standardized clinical variables will be collected on all patients at least 25 years of age complaining of chest pain prior to provocative testing. Variables strongly associated with the composite outcome acute myocardial infarction, revascularization, or death will be further analyzed with multivariable analysis to derive the clinical rule. Specific aims are to: i) apply standardized clinical assessments to patients with chest pain, incorporating results of early cardiac testing; ii) determine the inter-observer reliability of the clinical information; iii) determine the statistical association between the clinical findings and the composite outcome; and iv) use multivariable analysis to derive a highly sensitive clinical decision rule to guide triage decisions.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The study will derive a highly sensitive clinical decision rule to identify low risk patients safe for early discharge. This will improve patient care, lower healthcare costs, and enhance flow in our busy and overcrowded emergency departments.</p

Key stakeholder perceptions about consent to participate in acute illness research: a rapid, systematic review to inform epi/pandemic research preparedness

Background A rigorous research response is required to inform clinical and public health decision-making during an epi/pandemic. However, the ethical conduct of such research, which often involves critically ill patients, may be complicated by the diminished capacity to consent and an imperative to initiate trial therapies within short time frames. Alternative approaches to taking prospective informed consent may therefore be used. We aimed to rapidly review evidence on key stakeholder (patients, their proxy decision-makers, clinicians and regulators) views concerning the acceptability of various approaches for obtaining consent relevant to pandemic-related acute illness research. Methods We conducted a rapid evidence review, using the Internet, database and hand-searching for English language empirical publications from 1996 to 2014 on stakeholder opinions of consent models (prospective informed, third-party, deferred, or waived) used in acute illness research. We excluded research on consent to treatment, screening, or other such procedures, non-emergency research and secondary studies. Papers were categorised, and data summarised using narrative synthesis. Results We screened 689 citations, reviewed 104 full-text articles and included 52. Just one paper related specifically to pandemic research. In other emergency research contexts potential research participants, clinicians and research staff found third-party, deferred, and waived consent to be acceptable as a means to feasibly conduct such research. Acceptability to potential participants was motivated by altruism, trust in the medical community, and perceived value in medical research and decreased as the perceived risks associated with participation increased. Discrepancies were observed in the acceptability of the concept and application or experience of alternative consent models. Patients accepted clinicians acting as proxy-decision makers, with preference for two decision makers as invasiveness of interventions increased. Research regulators were more cautious when approving studies conducted with alternative consent models; however, their views were generally under-represented. Conclusions Third-party, deferred, and waived consent models are broadly acceptable to potential participants, clinicians and/or researchers for emergency research. Further consultation with key stakeholders, particularly with regulators, and studies focused specifically on epi/pandemic research, are required. We highlight gaps and recommendations to inform set-up and protocol development for pandemic research and institutional review board processes