Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Locally delivered steroids by inhalers or nebulizers have been shown in small trials to be effective in acute asthma attack, but evidence-based data are insufficient to establish their place as routine management of adult asthma attacks.

Objectives: To determine the efficacy of nebulized compared to systemic steroids in adult asthmatics admitted to the emergency department following an acute attack.

Methods: Adult asthmatics admitted to the ED[1] were assigned in random consecutive case fashion to one of three protocol groups: group 1 – nebulized steroid fluticasone (Flixotide Nebules®), group 2 – intravenous methylprednisolone, group 3 – combined treatment by both routes. Objective and subjective parameters, such as peak expiratory flow, oxygen saturation, heart rate, and dyspnea score, were registered before and 2 hours after ED treatment was initiated. Steroids were continued for 1 week following the ED visit according to the protocol arm. Data on hospital admission/discharge rate, ED readmissions in the week after enrollment and other major events related to asthma were registered.

Results: Altogether, 73 adult asthmatics were assigned to receive treatment: 24 patients in group 1, 23 in group 2 and 26 in group 3. Mean age was 44.4 ± 16.8 years (range 17–75 years). Peak expiratory flow and dyspnea score significantly improved in group 1 patients compared with patients in the other groups after 2 hours of ED treatment (P = 0.021 and 0.009, respectively). The discharge rate after ED treatment was significantly higher in groups 1 and 3 than in group 2 (P = 0.05). All 73 patients were alive a week after enrollment. Five patients (20.8%) in the Flixotide treatment arm were hospitalized and required additional systemic steroids. Multivariate analysis of factors affecting hospitalization rate demonstrated that severity of asthma (odds ratio 8.11) and group 2 (OD[2] 4.17) had a negative effect, whereas adherence to chronic anti-asthma therapy (OD 0.49) reduced the hospitalization rate.

Conclusions: Our study cohort showed the advantage of nebulized steroid fluticasone versus systemic corticosteroids in adult asthmatics managed in the ED following an acute attack. Both these and previous results suggest that nebulized steroids should be used, either alone or in combination with systemic steroids, to treat adults with an acute asthma attack.

Background: The extent of medical and financial problems of polypharmacy in the elderly is disturbing, particularly in nursing homes and nursing departments.

Objectives: To improve drug therapy and minimize drug intake in nursing departments.

Methods: We introduced a geriatric-palliative approach and methodology to combat the problem of polypharmacy. The study group comprised 119 disabled patients in six geriatric nursing departments, and the control group 71 patients of comparable age, gender and co-morbidities patients in the same wards. After 12 months, we assessed whether any change in medications affected the death rate, referrals to acute care facility and costs.

Results: A total of 332 different drugs were discontinued in 119 patients (average of 2.8 drugs per patient) and was not associated with significant adverse effects. The overall rate of drug discontinuation failure was 18% of all patients and 10% of all drugs. The 1 year mortality rate was 45% in the control group but only 21% in the study group (P < 0.001, chi-square test). The patients’ annual referral rate to acute care facilities was 30% in the control group but only 11.8% in the study group (P < 0.002). The intervention was associated with a substantial decrease in the cost of drugs.

Conclusions: Application of the geriatric-palliative methodology in the disabled elderly enables simultaneous discontinuation of several medications and yields a number of benefits: reduction in mortality rates and referrals to acute care facilities, lower costs, and improved quality of living.

Objectives: To investigate the incidence of splenic emboli treated in a single general internal medicine department over the last 3 years.

Methods: We examined the records of a 35 bed internal medicine department in a hospital in the center of Israel.

Results: Over a period of 3 years 13 patients admitted to one internal medicine department developed acute abdominal pain and areas of hypoperfusion in the spleen on contrast computed tomography imaging. The patients were treated with anticoagulants, their course was benign and there were no long-term sequelae.

Conclusions: Embolus to the spleen is not rare in an internal medicine department. Diagnosis can be easily made by contrast CT scanning and treatment with anticoagulants results in a good prognosis. 

Background: Emergency room triage of patients presenting with chest pain syndromes may be difficult. Under-diagnosis may be dangerous, while over0diagnosis may be costly.

Objectives: To report our initial experience with an emergency room cardiologist-based chest pain unit in Israel.

Methods: During a 5 week pilot study, we examined resource utilization and ER [1] diagnosis in 124 patients with chest pain of uncertain etiology or non-high risk acute coronary syndrome. First assessment was performed by the ER physicians and was followed by a second assessment by the CPU[2] team. Assessment was based on the following parameters: medical history and examination, serial electrocardiography, hematology, biochemistry and biomarkers for ACS[3], exercise stress testing and/or 64-slice multi-detector cardiac computed tomography angiography. Changes in decision between initial assessment and final CPU assessment with regard to hospitalization and utilization of resources were recorded.

Results: All patients had at least two cardiac troponin T measurements, 19 underwent EST[4], 9 echocardiography and 29 cardiac MDCT[5]. Fourteen patients were referred for early cardiac catheterization (same/next day). Specific working diagnosis was reached in 71/84 patients hospitalized, including unstable angina in 39 (31%) and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction in 12 (10%). Following CPU assessment, 40/124 patients (32%) were discharged, 49 (39%) were admitted to Internal Medicine and 35 (28%) to the Cardiology departments. CPU assessment and extended resources allowed discharge of 30/101 patients (30%) who were initially identified as candidates for hospitalization after ER assessment. Furthermore, 13/23 (56%) of patients who were candidates for discharge after initial ER assessment were eventually hospitalized. Use of non-invasive tests was significantly greater in patients discharged from the ER (85% vs. 38% patients hospitalized) (P < 0.0001). The mean ER stay tended to be longer (14.9 ± 8.6 hours vs. 12.9 ± 11, P = NS) for patients discharged. At 30 days follow-up, there were no adverse events (myocardial infarction or death) in any of the 40 patients discharged from the ER after CPU assessment. One patient returned to the ER because of chest pain and was discharged after re-assessment. 

Conclusions: Our initial experience showed that an ER cardiologist-based chest pain unit improved assessment of patients presenting to the ER with chest pain, and enhanced appropriate use of diagnostic tests prior to decision regarding admission/discharge from the ER.

Objectives: To determine the prevalence of abnormal coagulation studies in ED[1] patients evaluated for suspected ACS[2], and to investigate whether abnormal international normalized ratio/partial thromboplastin time testing resulted in changes in patient management and whether abnormal results could be predicted by history and physical examination.

Methods: In this retrospective observational study, hospital and ED records were obtained for all patients with a diagnosis of ACS seen in the ED during a 3 month period. ED records were reviewed to identify all patients in whom the cardiac laboratory panel was performed. Other data included demographics, diagnosis and disposition, historical risk factors for abnormalities of coagulation, ED and inpatient management, INR[3]/PTT[4], platelet count and cardiac enzymes. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed.

Results: Complete data were available for 223 of the 227 patients (98.7%). Of these, 175 (78.5%) patients were admitted. The mean age was 64.2 years. Thirteen patients (5.8%) were diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction. Of the 223 patients, 29 (13%) and 23 (10%) had INR and PTT results respectively beyond the reference range. Seventy percent of patients with abnormal coagulation test results had risk factors for coagulation disorders. The abnormal results of the remaining patients included only a mild elevation and therefore no change in management was initiated.

Conclusions: Abnormal coagulation test results in patients presenting with suspected ACS are rare, they can usually be predicted by history, and they rarely affect management. Routine coagulation studies are not indicated in these patients.

Background: The long-standing and ongoing controversy regarding administration of analgesia to patients with acute abdominal pain prior to final diagnosis has not yet been resolved, despite considerable research. Consequently, wide variations in clinical practice exist.

Objectives: To determine the motives, attitudes and practices of emergency physicians, internists and surgeons in Israeli emergency departments regarding the administration of analgesia before diagnosis in patients with acute abdominal pain.

Methods: Questionnaires were completed by 122 physicians in 21 EDs[1] throughout Israel and the replies were analyzed.

Results: Most EDs did not have a clear policy on analgesia for undifferentiated abdominal pain, according to 65% of the responders. More internists (75%) than surgeons (54%) (P = 0.02) and more emergency physicians (81%) than all other physicians (60%) (P = 0.05) held this opinion. Most respondents (64%) supported administration of analgesia pre-diagnostically. Support for analgesia was significantly stronger among internists (75%) compared to surgeons (52%) (P = 0.03). Despite this wide support, most respondents (68%) indicated that analgesia was rarely or never given pre‑diagnostically and, when it was, more surgeons (58%) than other physicians made that decision. Most internists (73%) and all surgeons reported that patients receive analgesia only after being examined by surgeons. Time allocated to the ED (part‑ or full‑time) significantly (P = 0.02) influenced decision-making, with 51% of part-time physicians vs. 25% of full-time opposing prompt administration of analgesia. Opinions on who should decide were divided according to medical specialty, with surgeons and internists almost opposed, as well as by physician age and percent of his/her time spent working in the ED. More surgeons than internists (P = 0.0005) reported that analgesia sometimes interfered with making a diagnosis. Most physicians (90%) stated that opiates impede diagnosis, to some extent. However, 58% of them supported the administration of opiates, more or less frequently. Intramuscular diclofenac was the most preferred analgesic, followed by intravenous morphine and pethidine; individual preferences extended beyond the list of actually administered drugs.

Conclusions: There is no consensus on the administration of analgesia for undiagnosed acute abdominal pain in EDs in Israel. Physicians’ attitudes are influenced by training, experience, and percent of personal time allocated to work in the ED.

The treatment of acute pain and anxiety in children undergoing therapeutic and diagnostic procedures in the emergency department has improved dramatically in recent years. The availability of non-invasive monitoring devices and the use of short-acting sedative and analgesic medications enable physicians to conduct safe and effective sedation and analgesia treatment. In today's practice of pediatric emergency medicine, sedation and analgesia has been considered as the standard of care for procedural pain. In most pediatric emergency departments throughout North America, "procedural sedation and analgesia" treatment is being performed by non-anesthesiologists (qualified emergency physicians and nurses). In 2003, the Israel Ministry of Health published formal guidelines for pediatric sedation by non-anesthesiologists; this important document recognizes for the first time the need for pediatric sedation and analgesia in the operating room. We describe the basic principles of procedural sedation and analgesia in children and urge physicians working in pediatric emergency rooms in Israel to expand their knowledge and be more involved in the treatment of pediatric procedural pain.

Background: Understanding discharge instructions is crucial to optimal healing but may be compromised in the hectic environment of the emergency department.

Objectives: To determine parents’ understanding of ED[1] discharge instructions and factors that may affect it.

Methods: A convenience sample of parents of children discharged home from the ED of an urban tertiary care pediatric facility (n=287) and a suburban level II general hospital (n=195) completed a 13-item questionnaire covering demographics, level of anxiety, and quality of physician’s explanation. Parents also described their child’s diagnosis and treatment instructions and indicated preferred auxiliary methods of delivery of information. Data were analyzed using the BMPD statistical package.

Results: Full understanding was found in 72% and 78% of the parents at the respective centers for the diagnosis, and in 82% and 87% for the treatment instructions (P  = NS between centers). There was no statistical correlation between level of understanding and parental age, gender, education, level of anxiety before or after the ED visit, or time of day. The most contributory factor to lack of understanding was staff use of medical terminology. Parents suggested further explanations by a special discharge nurse and written information as auxiliary methods.

Conclusions: Overall, parental understanding of ED discharge instructions is good. However, there remains a considerable number (about 20%) who fail to fully comprehend the diagnosis or treatment directives. This subset might benefit from the use of lay terminology by the staff, institution of a special discharge nurse, or use of diagnosis-specific information sheets.

Background: Although the preferred management of a patient presenting with an acute myocardial infarction is in a coronary care unit, data based on discharge diagnoses in Israel indicate that many of these patients are treated outside such units.

Objectives: To compare the demographic and clinical characteristics, treatment and mortality of AMI[1] patients treated inside and outside a CCU[2].

Methods: We compiled a registry of all patients admitted to three general hospitals in Haifa, Israel during January, March, May, July, September and November 1996.

Results: The non-CCU admission rate was 22%. CCU patients were younger (61.6 vs. 65.5 years), less likely to report a past AMI (18% vs. 34%), and arrived earlier at the emergency room. Non-CCU patients were more likely to present with severe heart failure (30 vs. 11%). Non-CCU patients received less aspirin (81 vs. 95%) and beta-blockers (62 vs. 80%). Upon discharge, these patients were less frequently prescribed beta-blockers and cardiac rehabilitation programs. CCU-treated patients had lower unadjusted mortality rates at both 30 days (odds ratio=0.35) and in the long term (hazards ratio=0.57). These ratios were attenuated after controlling for gender, age, type of AMI, and degree of heart failure (OR[3]=0.91 and HR[4]=0.78, respectively).

Conclusions: A relatively high proportion of AMI patients were treated outside a CCU, with older and sicker patients being denied admission to a CCU. The process of evidence-based care by cardiologists was preferable to that of internists both during the hospital stay and at discharge. In Israel a significant proportion of all AMI admissions are initially treated outside a CCU. Emphasis on increasing awareness in internal medicine departments to evidence-based care of AMI is indicated.

Background: The emergency department is one of the hospital’s busiest facilities and is frequently described as a bottleneck. Management by constraint is a managerial methodology that helps to focus on the most critical issues by identifying such bottlenecks. Based on this theory, the benefit of adding medical staff may depend on whether or not physician availability is the bottleneck in the system.

Objective: To formulate a dynamic statistical model to forecast the need for allocating additional medical staff to improve the efficacy of work in the emergency department, taking into account patient volume.

Methods: The daily number of non-trauma admissions to the general ED[1] was assessed for the period 1 January 1992 to 1 December 1995 using the hospital computerized database. The marginal benefit to shortening patient length of stay in the ED by adding a physician during the evening shift was examined for different patient volumes. Data were analyzed with the SAS software package using a Gross Linear Model.

Results: The addition of a physician to the ED staff from noon to midnight significantly shortened patient LOS[2]: an average decrease of 6.61 minutes for 80–119 admissions (P<0.001). However, for less than 80 or more than 120 admissions, adding a physician did not have a significant effect on LOS in the ED.

Conclusions: The dynamic model formulated in this study shows that patient volume determines the effectiveness of investing manpower in the ED. Identifying bottleneck critical factors, as suggested by the theory of constraints, may be useful for planning and coordinating emergency services that operate under stressful and unpredictable conditions. Consideration of patient volume may also provide ED managers with a logical basis for staffing and resource allocation.

Background: Patients’ consent to being part of medical education is often taken for granted, both in primary and secondary care. Formal consent procedures are not used routinely during teaching and patients are not always aware of teaching activities.

Objective: To investigate patients’ attitudes and expectations on issues of consent regarding participation in teaching in general practice, and the influence of a student’s presence on the consultation.

Methods: The study took place in 46 teaching practices during the sixth year clinical internship in family medicine. Patients completed questionnaires at the end of 10 consecutive eligible consultations. The questionnaire contained data on the willingness to participate in teaching, the preferred consent procedure and the effects of the student’s presence. The doctors were asked to estimate the sociodemographic level in their clinic area.

Results: A total of 375 questionnaires were returned; the response rate was not affected by the clinic’s sociodemographic level. Overall, 67% of the patients had come into contact with students in the past; 3.2% of the participants objected to the presence of a student during the consultation; 15% would insist on advance notification of the presence of a student, and another 13.9% would request it; 4% stated that the presence of students had a detrimental influence on the physical examination and history; and 33.6% would refuse to be examined by a student without the doctor’s presence.

Conclusion: Most patients agreed to have a student present during the consultation; some would like prior notification; a minority refused the student’s presence. A large minority would refuse to be examined without the tutor’s presence. Our findings need to be taken into account when planning clinical clerkships.

Background: Transfer to an emergency room and hospitalization of nursing home residents is a growing problem that is poorly defined and reported.

Objectives: To assess the clinical effectiveness of a pilot project involving hospitalization of nursing home residents directly to an acute-care geriatric department.

Methods: We retrospectively compared the hospitalization in an acute-care geriatric unit of 126 nursing home residents admitted directly to the unit and 80 residents admitted through the emergency room. The variables measured included length of stay, discharge disposition, mortality, cause of hospitalization, chronic medical condition, cognitive state, functional status at admission, and change of functional status during the hospital stay. Follow-up data were obtained from medical records during the 2 year study.

Results: No significant differences between the groups were found for length of stay, mortality, discharge disposition and most characteristics of the hospital stay. The only significant difference was in patients’ mean age, as emergency room patients were significantly older (86 vs. 82.9 years). The most common condition among nursing home patients admitted via the emergency room was febrile disease (36.9%) ,while functional decline was the most common in those coming directly from the nursing home (32.5%). The prevalence of functional dependence and dementia were similar in both groups. Functional status did not change throughout the hospital stay in most patients.

Conclusions: Treatment of selected nursing home residents admitted directly from the nursing home to an acute- care geriatric unit is feasible, medically effective, results in the safe discharge of almost all such patients and provides an alternative to transfer to an emergency room. This study suggests that quality gains and cost-effective measures may be achieved by such a project, although a randomized controlled trial is necessary to support this hypothesis.