Advertisement

Trends in advanced imaging and hospitalization for emergency department syncope care before and after ACEP clinical policy

Published:August 22, 2018DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2018.08.043

      Abstract

      Objectives

      To describe recent trends in advanced imaging and hospitalization of emergency department (ED) syncope patients, both considered “low-value”, and examine trend changes before and after the publication of American College Emergency Physician (ACEP) syncope guidelines in 2007, compared to conditions that had no changes in guideline recommendations.

      Methods

      We analyzed 2002–2015 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data using an interrupted-time series with comparison series design. The primary outcomes were advanced imaging among ED visits with principal diagnosis of syncope and headache and hospitalization for ED visits with principal diagnosis of syncope, chest pain, dysrhythmia, and pneumonia. We adjusted annual imaging and hospitalization rates using survey-weighted multivariable logistic regression, controlling for demographic and visit characteristics. Using adjusted outcomes as datapoints, we compared linear trends and trend changes of annual imaging and hospitalization rates before and after 2007 with aggregate-level multivariable linear regression.

      Results

      From 2002 to 2007, advanced imaging rates for syncope increased from 27.2% to 42.1% but had no significant trend after 2007 (trend change: −3.1%; 95%CI −4.7, −1.6). Hospitalization rates remained at approximately 37% from 2002 to 2007 but declined to 25.7% by 2015 (trend change: −2.2%; 95%CI −3.0, −1.4). Similar trend changes occurred among control conditions versus syncope, including advanced imaging for headache (difference in trend change: −0.6%; 95%CI −2.8, 1.6) and hospitalizations for chest pain, dysrhythmia, and pneumonia (differences in trend changes: 0.1% [95%CI −1.9, 2.0]; −0.9% [95%CI −3.1, 1.3]; and −1.2% [95%CI −5.3, 2.9], respectively).

      Conclusions

      Before and after the release of 2007 ACEP syncope guidelines, trends in advanced imaging and hospitalization for ED syncope visits had similar changes compared to control conditions. Changes in syncope care may, therefore, reflect broader practice shifts rather than a direct association with the 2007 ACEP guideline. Moreover, utilization of advanced imaging remains prevalent. To reduce low-value care, policymakers should augment society guidelines with additional policy changes such as reportable quality measures.

      Abbreviations:

      ED (emergency department), ACEP (American College of Emergency Physicians), NHAMCS (National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey), NCHS (National Center for Health Statistics), CT (computer tomography), MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), CCS (clinical classification software), AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality)

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to The American Journal of Emergency Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Probst M.A.
        • Kanzaria H.K.
        • Gbedemah M.
        • Richardson L.D.
        • Sun B.C.
        National trends in resource utilization associated with ED visits for syncope.
        Am J Emerg Med. 2015; 33: 998-1001
        • Sun B.C.
        • Costantino G.
        • Barbic F.
        • et al.
        Priorities for emergency department syncope research.
        Ann Emerg Med. 2014; 64 ([e2]): 649-655
        • Shen W.K.
        • Sheldon R.S.
        • Benditt D.G.
        • et al.
        ACC/AHA/HRS Guideline for the evaluation and management of patients with syncope: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines, and the Heart Rhythm Society.
        Circulation. 2017; 2017
        • Shiyovich A.
        • Munchak I.
        • Zelingher J.
        • Grosbard A.
        • Katz A.
        Admission for syncope: evaluation, cost and prognosis according to etiology.
        Isr Med Assoc J. 2008; 10: 104-108
        • Morag R.M.
        • Murdock L.F.
        • Khan Z.A.
        • Heller M.J.
        • Brenner B.E.
        Do patients with a negative emergency department evaluation for syncope require hospital admission?.
        J Emerg Med. 2004; 27: 339-343
        • Linzer M.
        • Yang E.H.
        • Estes 3rd, N.A.
        • et al.
        Diagnosing syncope. Part 1: value of history, physical examination, and electrocardiography. Clinical Efficacy Assessment Project of the American College of Physicians.
        Ann Intern Med. 1997; 126: 989-996
        • Huff J.S.
        • Decker W.W.
        • Quinn J.V.
        • et al.
        Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with syncope.
        Ann Emerg Med. 2007; 49: 431-444
        • Eggleston K.S.
        • Coker A.L.
        • Das I.P.
        • Cordray S.T.
        • Luchok K.J.
        Understanding barriers for adherence to follow-up care for abnormal pap tests.
        J Women's Health (Larchmt). 2007; 16: 311-330
        • Ghoshhajra B.B.
        • Takx R.A.P.
        • Staziaki P.V.
        • et al.
        Clinical implementation of an emergency department coronary computed tomographic angiography protocol for triage of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome.
        Eur Radiol. 2017; 27: 2784-2793
        • Wagner A.K.
        • Soumerai S.B.
        • Zhang F.
        • Ross-Degnan D.
        Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series studies in medication use research.
        J Clin Pharm Ther. 2002; 27: 299-309
        • Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP)
        Clinical Classifications Software (CCS) for ICD-9-CM.
        Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MDOctober 2016 (Available from:)
        • Huff J.S.
        • Decker W.W.
        • Quinn J.V.
        • et al.
        Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with syncope.
        J Emerg Nurs. 2007; 33: e1-e17
        • Schwartz A.L.
        • Landon B.E.
        • Elshaug A.G.
        • Chernew M.E.
        • McWilliams J.M.
        Measuring low-value care in Medicare.
        JAMA Intern Med. 2014; 174: 1067-1076
        • Venkatesh A.K.
        • Dai Y.
        • Ross J.S.
        • et al.
        Variation in US hospital emergency department admission rates by clinical condition.
        Med Care. 2015; 53: 237-244
        • Fesmire F.M.
        • Decker W.W.
        • Diercks D.B.
        • et al.
        Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes.
        Ann Emerg Med. 2006; 48: 270-301
        • Venkatesh A.K.
        • Geisler B.P.
        • Gibson Chambers J.J.
        • et al.
        Use of observation care in US emergency departments, 2001 to 2008.
        PLoS One. 2011; 6e24326
        • Feng Z.
        • Wright B.
        • Mor V.
        Sharp rise in Medicare enrollees being held in hospitals for observation raises concerns about causes and consequences.
        Health Aff (Millwood). 2012; 31: 1251-1259
        • Williams R.
        Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects.
        Stata J. 2012; 12: 308-331
        • Linden A.
        Conducting interrupted time-series analysis for single-and multiple-group comparisons.
        Stata J. 2015; 15: 480-500
        • National Center for Health Statistics
        NHAMCS Micro-data File Documentation.
        Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014 (Available from:)
        • Sodickson A.
        • Baeyens P.F.
        • Andriole K.P.
        • et al.
        Recurrent CT, cumulative radiation exposure, and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from CT of adults.
        Radiology. 2009; 251: 175-184
        • Smith-Bindman R.
        • Lipson J.
        • Marcus R.
        • et al.
        Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer.
        Arch Intern Med. 2009; 169: 2078-2086
        • Lee M.H.
        • Schuur J.D.
        • Zink B.J.
        Owning the cost of emergency medicine: beyond 2%.
        Ann Emerg Med. 2013; 62 ([e3]): 498-505
        • Berwick D.M.
        • Hackbarth A.D.
        Eliminating waste in US health care.
        JAMA. 2012; 307: 1513-1516
        • Schuur J.D.
        • Baugh C.W.
        • Hess E.P.
        • et al.
        Critical pathways for post-emergency outpatient diagnosis and treatment: tools to improve the value of emergency care.
        Acad Emerg Med. 2011; 18: e52-e63
        • Hoot N.R.
        • Aronsky D.
        Systematic review of emergency department crowding: causes, effects, and solutions.
        Ann Emerg Med. 2008; 52: 126-136
        • Baugh C.W.
        • Schuur J.D.
        Observation care—high-value care or a cost-shifting loophole?.
        N Engl J Med. 2013; 369: 302-305
        • Krumholz H.M.
        • Bradley E.H.
        • Nallamothu B.K.
        • et al.
        A campaign to improve the timeliness of primary percutaneous coronary intervention: door-to-balloon: an alliance for quality.
        JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2008; 1: 97-104
        • Studdert D.M.
        • Mello M.M.
        • Sage W.M.
        • et al.
        Defensive medicine among high-risk specialist physicians in a volatile malpractice environment.
        JAMA. 2005; 293: 2609-2617
        • McCaig L.F.
        • Burt C.W.
        Understanding and interpreting the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: key questions and answers.
        Ann Emerg Med. 2012; 60 ([e1]): 716-721