Predictors of emergency physician adherence to standardized pulmonary embolism testing.

IF 2.4
CJEM Pub Date : 2025-05-20 DOI:10.1007/s43678-025-00930-5
Yi Fan Kang, Sahar Zarabi, Elena Tataru, Natasha Clayton, Jocelyn Kuber, Yang Hu, Shriya Baweja, Fayad Al-Haimus, Haydar Al-Tukmachi, Federico Germini, Kerstin de Wit
{"title":"Predictors of emergency physician adherence to standardized pulmonary embolism testing.","authors":"Yi Fan Kang, Sahar Zarabi, Elena Tataru, Natasha Clayton, Jocelyn Kuber, Yang Hu, Shriya Baweja, Fayad Al-Haimus, Haydar Al-Tukmachi, Federico Germini, Kerstin de Wit","doi":"10.1007/s43678-025-00930-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>An evidence-based pathway for pulmonary embolism testing was implemented in two academic emergency departments as part of a prospective management study (the PEGeD study). This study aimed to identify factors associated with emergency physicians not following (deviating from) the PEGeD pulmonary embolism testing pathway.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a health records review of cases from the PEGeD study which enrolled emergency patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Emergency physicians documented the Wells score on hard-copy PEGeD pathway forms which guided the use of diagnostic imaging. Patient visits were classified as having pulmonary embolism testing adhering to or else deviating from the PEGeD pathway. Patient data were collected from electronic medical records. We calculated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for prespecified predictors of deviation: patient age, patient sex, arrival day of week, arrival time of day, documented hypotension, higher Canadian Triage and Acuity Score (CTAS) allocation, active cancer, and a history of venous thromboembolism. The multivariable logistical regression analysis was clustered by individual physician.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total 1570 PEGeD forms were received, 78 were excluded and 1492 patients were included for analysis. The mean age was 55, 62% female, 27% presented at the weekend, 44% presented after 4 pm, 19% with cancer history, 13% with prior venous thromboembolism, 3% had a systolic blood pressure less than 100 mmHg and 46% had a CTAS score of 1 or 2. The treating physician deviated from the PEGeD pathway in 81/1492 (5.4%, 95% CI 4.4, 6.7%)) patients, of whom 7 were diagnosed with pulmonary embolism. Deviation from the PEGeD pathway was associated with a CTAS score of 1 or 2 (aOR 2.02; 1.26, 3.24) and prior venous thromboembolism (aOR 1.85; 1.04, 3.30).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Emergency physician deviated from the PEGeD pathway infrequently. Physicians should question whether imaging is needed when D-dimer blood testing has already excluded pulmonary embolism.</p>","PeriodicalId":93937,"journal":{"name":"CJEM","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CJEM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-025-00930-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: An evidence-based pathway for pulmonary embolism testing was implemented in two academic emergency departments as part of a prospective management study (the PEGeD study). This study aimed to identify factors associated with emergency physicians not following (deviating from) the PEGeD pulmonary embolism testing pathway.

Methods: This was a health records review of cases from the PEGeD study which enrolled emergency patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Emergency physicians documented the Wells score on hard-copy PEGeD pathway forms which guided the use of diagnostic imaging. Patient visits were classified as having pulmonary embolism testing adhering to or else deviating from the PEGeD pathway. Patient data were collected from electronic medical records. We calculated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for prespecified predictors of deviation: patient age, patient sex, arrival day of week, arrival time of day, documented hypotension, higher Canadian Triage and Acuity Score (CTAS) allocation, active cancer, and a history of venous thromboembolism. The multivariable logistical regression analysis was clustered by individual physician.

Results: In total 1570 PEGeD forms were received, 78 were excluded and 1492 patients were included for analysis. The mean age was 55, 62% female, 27% presented at the weekend, 44% presented after 4 pm, 19% with cancer history, 13% with prior venous thromboembolism, 3% had a systolic blood pressure less than 100 mmHg and 46% had a CTAS score of 1 or 2. The treating physician deviated from the PEGeD pathway in 81/1492 (5.4%, 95% CI 4.4, 6.7%)) patients, of whom 7 were diagnosed with pulmonary embolism. Deviation from the PEGeD pathway was associated with a CTAS score of 1 or 2 (aOR 2.02; 1.26, 3.24) and prior venous thromboembolism (aOR 1.85; 1.04, 3.30).

Conclusions: Emergency physician deviated from the PEGeD pathway infrequently. Physicians should question whether imaging is needed when D-dimer blood testing has already excluded pulmonary embolism.

急诊医师对标准化肺栓塞检测依从性的预测因素。
目的:作为前瞻性管理研究(PEGeD研究)的一部分,在两个学术急诊科实施了基于证据的肺栓塞检测途径。本研究旨在确定急诊医生不遵循(偏离)PEGeD肺栓塞检测途径的相关因素。方法:这是对PEGeD研究中疑似肺栓塞的急诊患者的健康记录的回顾。急诊医生将威尔斯评分记录在硬拷贝的peg路径表格上,该表格指导诊断成像的使用。患者就诊被分类为肺栓塞试验坚持或偏离PEGeD途径。从电子病历中收集患者数据。我们计算了预先指定的偏差预测因素的调整优势比(aORs):患者年龄、患者性别、到达日期、到达时间、记录的低血压、较高的加拿大分诊和急性评分(CTAS)分配、活动性癌症和静脉血栓栓塞史。多变量logistic回归分析按个体医师聚类。结果:共收到1570份PEGeD表格,排除78例,纳入1492例进行分析。平均年龄为55岁,62%为女性,27%在周末就诊,44%在下午4点后就诊,19%有癌症病史,13%有静脉血栓栓塞史,3%收缩压低于100 mmHg, 46%的CTAS评分为1或2分。在81/1492 (5.4%,95% CI 4.4, 6.7%)例患者中,治疗医师偏离了PEGeD路径,其中7例诊断为肺栓塞。偏离peg通路与CTAS评分为1或2相关(aOR 2.02;1.26, 3.24)和既往静脉血栓栓塞(aOR 1.85;1.04, 3.30)。结论:急诊医师很少偏离PEGeD路径。当d -二聚体血液检测已经排除肺栓塞时,医生应该考虑是否需要影像学检查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信