Evaluation of the Impact of an Emergency Focused Ophthalmology Teaching Course on the Confidence of Emergency Doctors (2024)

Type of publication:

Conference abstract

Author(s):

*Mahon E.J.E.; *Ahnood D.

Citation:

Eye (Basingstoke). Conference: The Royal College of Ophthalmologists Annual Congress 2024. Belfast United Kingdom. 38 (pp 142), 2024. Date of Publication: 01 Nov 2024.

Abstract:

Introduction: It has been established that doctors in Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments have minimal confidence in managing ophthalmic presentations (Murray, P., et al. Eye 2016; https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2016.99). The lack of confidence to accurately assess and manage patients presenting to A&E will likely have an impact on the quality of patient management and the quality of referrals made to eye casualties. We hypothesize that a teaching course covering core emergency ophthalmic examination and management skills will improve attendees' confidence in these areas. Method(s): Doctors currently or potentially working in A&E were invited to attend a teaching session where they would rotate between three stations which included slit lamp examination, simulation of foreign body removal and managing chemical eye injury. Teaching was delivered in small groups, with experienced staff leading the sessions. Pre-and post-course questionnaires included a 1-5 Likert scale self-assessment confidence rating on the three areas of teaching and overall confidence. Result(s): The course was attended by 13 doctors, with 46% of attendees being junior emergency specialty trainees or trainee equivalents, 38% were foundation doctors and 15% were A&E staff grade doctors equivalent to registrar. 92% of those who attended reported less than one hour of slit lamp examination time. Overall, the attendees' overall confidence went from 1.9 to 4.2 on the Likert scale. Conclusion(s): Our findings demonstrate a lack of confidence from the A&E doctors in assessing patients presenting with ophthalmic issues, with an overall confidence score of

DOI: 10.1038/s41433-024-03254-3

Link to full-text [no password required]

Emergency hospital admissions while on an elective waiting list in England: an observational study using administrative data (2026)

Type of publication:

Journal article

Author(s):

James, Anthony P; Gray, William K; *Cheetham, Mark J; Eardley, Ian; Lansdown, Mark.

Citation:

British Journal of Surgery. 113(2), 2026 Feb 11.

Abstract:

INTRODUCTION: Patients awaiting elective procedures often have conditions that carry a risk of medical emergencies. This study quantifies the extent and variation of emergency hospital admissions during the waiting period across selected specialties and procedures.

METHODS: Data from the NHS England Waiting List Minimum Dataset linked to the Secondary Uses Service hospital admissions data set from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2023 was analysed. Emergency admissions occurring while patients awaited treatment were identified and categorized from 'very likely' related to the index condition or its recognized co-morbid risks-and potentially avoidable through definitive treatment-through to 'unrelated'.

RESULTS: In 2023 some 2 093 789 waits (both incomplete and complete) were recorded across 41 selected procedures spanning 11 specialties. Over a combined waiting time of 33 832 790 days, 69 322 emergency admissions occurred, accounting for 535 806 bed days. The highest emergency admission rates per 52 weeks waiting were observed for urinary stent procedures (0.71), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (0.63), and urinary catheter care (0.55). Nine procedures had more emergency bed days during the wait than elective bed days post-treatment, with the highest emergency/elective bed day ratios for ureteric stones (4.59), colonoscopy (2.80), and ablation/cardioversion (2.05).

CONCLUSION: A substantial number of patients on elective waiting lists are being admitted as emergencies during their wait, placing a burden on emergency care that would be avoided through more timely treatment. The variation in risk between specialties and pathways requires further prioritization strategies that mitigate patients' risk of associated harm, acting both within and across waiting lists, specialties, and organizations.

DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znaf292

Accuracy and Timeliness of Prehospital Global Triage System Protocols in Mass Disasters: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews (2025)

Type of publication:

Systematic Review

Author(s):

Shaltout, Amr Essam; Elfatih Elbadri, Mohammed; Kaur, Kiranjot; Alsharif, Mohammed M; Alkhazendar, Aliaa H; *Hassouba, Omar Nasr; Ahmad, Muhammad Nabeel; Osman, Mazin; Zahid, Areeba; Banjamin, Shaun.

Citation:

Cureus. 17(9):e92796, 2025 Sep.

Abstract:

This systematic review evaluated the accuracy and timeliness of global prehospital triage systems in mass disasters, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020
guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library up to June 2025 identified 344 records, of which four studies met eligibility criteria after screening and full-text assessment. Included studies analyzed conventional systems such as Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START), JumpSTART, Sort, Assess, Lifesaving Interventions, Treatment/Transport (SALT), and Modified Physiological Triage Tool (MPTT), as well as artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted approaches and diagnostic adjuncts like portable ultrasound. Sample sizes ranged from targeted reviews of 30-60 studies (systematic and evidence-based reviews) to practical evaluations of triage innovations involving prehospital and emergency responders. Data extraction captured accuracy, timeliness, and resource allocation, while risk of bias was assessed using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews version 2 (AMSTAR-2) and the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA), with ratings ranging from low to moderate. Results demonstrated that traditional systems such as START and SALT provide rapid categorization but remain prone to over- and under-triage depending on responder training and situational factors. AI-driven models and portable diagnostic technologies significantly improved decision speed, diagnostic precision, and prioritization of life-saving interventions, reducing delays in critical care. Overall, while no single algorithm proved universally superior, integration of training, simulation-based preparedness, and emerging AI-supported tools was consistently associated with improved triage performance in chaotic, resource-limited disaster environments.

DOI: 10.7759/cureus.92796

Link to full-text [open access - no password required]

Mental Health Liaison Team (2025)

Type of publication:

Service improvement case study

Author(s):

*Gemma Styles (on behalf of the working group)

Citation:

SaTH Improvement Hub, August 2025

SMART Aim:

To bridge the gap between physical and mental health care in PRH ED by June 2025, as evidenced by robust triage documentation and early referral to the mental health liaison service.

Link to PDF poster

Accuracy and Timeliness of Prehospital Global Triage System Protocols in Mass Disasters (2025)

Type of publication:

Journal article

Author(s):

Shaltout, Amr Essam; Elfatih Elbadri, Mohammed; Kaur, Kiranjot; Alsharif, Mohammed M; Alkhazendar, Aliaa H; *Hassouba, Omar Nasr; Ahmad, Muhammad Nabeel; Osman, Mazin; Zahid, Areeba; Banjamin, Shaun.

Citation:

Cureus. 17(9):e92796, 2025 Sep.

Abstract:

This systematic review evaluated the accuracy and timeliness of global prehospital triage systems in mass disasters, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020
guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library up to June 2025 identified 344 records, of which four studies met eligibility criteria after screening and full-text assessment. Included studies analyzed conventional systems such as Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START), JumpSTART, Sort, Assess, Lifesaving Interventions, Treatment/Transport (SALT), and Modified Physiological Triage Tool (MPTT), as well as artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted approaches and diagnostic adjuncts like portable ultrasound. Sample sizes ranged from targeted reviews of 30-60 studies (systematic and evidence-based reviews) to practical evaluations of triage innovations involving prehospital and emergency responders. Data extraction captured accuracy, timeliness, and resource allocation, while risk of bias was assessed using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews version 2 (AMSTAR-2) and the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA), with ratings ranging from low to moderate. Results demonstrated that traditional systems such as START and SALT provide rapid categorization but remain prone to over- and under-triage depending on responder training and situational factors. AI-driven models and portable diagnostic technologies significantly improved decision speed, diagnostic precision, and prioritization of life-saving interventions, reducing delays in critical care. Overall, while no single algorithm proved universally superior, integration of training, simulation-based preparedness, and emerging AI-supported tools was consistently associated with improved triage performance in chaotic, resource-limited disaster environments.

DOI: 10.7759/cureus.92796

Link to full-text [open access - no password required]

STONE Score as a Triage Tool to Guide Computed Tomography of the Kidneys, Ureters, and Bladder (CT-KUB) Requests in Suspected Renal Colic: A Quality Improvement Initiative (2025)

Type of publication:

Journal article

Author(s):

*Hassouba, Omar Nasr; Abdullah Omar, Abdulaziz Alsamani; Awan, Manahil; Ahmad, Shahzad; Taha, Mawada; Venkatachalapathi, Sharmila; Abouelsadat, Mohamed K; Mercy, Albina; Sahnon, Abdelrahman Sahnon Abaker; Shafique, Usama; *Herman, Dodi I.

Citation:

Cureus. 17(9):e92080, 2025 Sep.

Abstract:

Introduction Urolithiasis is a frequent cause of emergency department (ED) visits, with computed tomography (CT) being the gold standard for diagnosis. Excessive imaging increases radiation exposure and healthcare costs. The STONE score is a validated clinical prediction tool, designed to estimate the probability of ureteric stones and reduce unnecessary imaging. Objective The main objective of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the STONE score in patients presenting with flank pain. Methodology This is a cross-sectional retrospective review conducted at the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust (SATH), Shrewsbury, England, over a four-month period from April 1, 2023, to July 31, 2023. This quality improvement initiative reviewed 81 eligible ED patients who underwent computed tomography of the kidneys, ureters, and bladder (CT-KUB) for suspected ureteric stones. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, and imaging data were collected. STONE scores were calculated for all patients. Diagnostic performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Results The mean age was 38.5 +/- 16.1 years; 35 (43.2%) were male. Ureteric stones were confirmed in 15/19 (78.9%) high-risk, 9/45 (20%) moderate-risk, and 0/17 (0%) low-risk patients. The STONE score yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.879, with a sensitivity of 91.7% and a specificity of 66.7%. Alternative diagnoses included gallbladder stones, appendicitis, cystitis, diverticulitis, hydronephrosis, renal angiomyolipoma, polycystic kidney disease (PCKD), pyelonephritis, and small bowel obstruction (SBO). Conclusion The STONE score demonstrates good diagnostic accuracy, particularly in high-risk patients, and may help reduce unnecessary CT imaging and radiation exposure in the ED.

DOI: 10.7759/cureus.92080

Link to full-text [open access - no password required]

Emergency management of anaphylaxis and the impact of the new UK advanced life support guidelines (2025)

Type of publication:

Journal article

Author(s):

*Elshehawy, Mahmoud; Kadambi, Madhavi; Hughes, Deborah; Clarke, Daniel; Cooper, Angela; Inani, Mohit; Goktas, Polat; Goddard, Sarah; Diwakar, Lavanya.

Citation:

  Clinical Medicine. 25(6):100519, 2025 Sep 30.

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is a severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reaction that requires urgent and effective management. The UK Resuscitation Council updated its Advanced Life Support (ALS) guidelines for anaphylaxis in 2021, emphasizing early and repeated adrenaline administration, IV fluid use, and reduced reliance on antihistamines and steroids.

METHODS: A retrospective audit was carried out to compare the management of anaphylaxis at two English NHS hospitals, namely the University Hospital of North Midlands (UHNM) and the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital (SATH) before (2018) and after (2022/23) the ALS guideline implementation.
Adherence to NICE anaphylaxis guidance was also assessed.

RESULTS: Data from 272 patients revealed significant improvements in recognition of anaphylaxis in 2022 compared with 2018 (70.8% vs. 50%; p=0.001). The use of adrenaline and IV fluids increased, whereas the use of antihistamines and steroids declined, aligning with the new guidance. Tryptase measurement (checked in 45% patients) and specialist referral rates (67% at UHNM vs. 3% at SATH; p=0.0001) remained suboptimal at both centers. A case example highlights the risks of misdiagnosis and adrenaline overuse in patients with recurrent urticarial presentations.

CONCLUSION: Anaphylaxis management in these centers has changed in keeping with the new ALS guidelines, although antihistamines and steroids were still used in the acute management of around 50% of the patients. Adrenaline overuse may be an unintended consequence of the guideline, which needs monitoring. There may have been some improvement in anaphylaxis recognition, but serum tryptase measurement and referral to allergy specialists remain poor.

DOI: 10.1016/j.clinme.2025.100519

Diagnostic Capabilities of MRI and CT in Evaluating Dizziness: A Systematic Review of Acute Cases in the ED (2025)

Type of publication:

Journal article

Author(s):

Ali Mohammed, Elsuha Elgassim; Alzain Ali, Mohamed Almogtaba Mohamed; Eltayeb, Ethar; Saidahmed Ahmed, Lobaba Mubarak; *Ahmed Dafaalla, *Dalia Hamdan; Mohammed Elsheikh, Mohammed Omer; M Osman, Hanady Me.

Citation:

Cureus. 17(7):e88057, 2025 Jul.

Abstract:

Dizziness is a common reason for ED visits, posing diagnostic challenges due to its broad range of potential causes, from benign vestibular conditions to critical cerebrovascular events. Although CT scans are often used to quickly assess for intracranial hemorrhage, MRI provides greater accuracy for identifying strokes in the posterior circulation. Differences in imaging practices and uncertainty about the most effective approach highlight the need for a thorough evaluation of these modalities. This narrative systematic review examined the diagnostic performance of MRI and CT in assessing patients presenting with acute dizziness in ED settings, focusing on detection rates and clinical considerations. A comprehensive literature search was conducted, and eight relevant studies were included. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed, and findings were synthesized narratively due to variability in study designs. Overall, MRI showed a higher detection rate for underlying causes of dizziness compared to CT, particularly for posterior circulation strokes. CT was mainly useful for ruling out hemorrhage, while MRI offered superior detection of ischemic events. Using clinical factors such as age, vascular risk, and neurological findings may help prioritize MRI use in patients with higher stroke risk, supporting targeted imaging strategies to improve diagnostic outcomes and resource utilization.

DOI: 10.7759/cureus.88057

Link to full-text [open access - no password required]

Acute coronary syndrome rule-out strategies in the emergency department: an observational evaluation of clinical effectiveness and current UK practice (2025)

Type of publication:

Journal article

Author(s):

Ingram A.; Boldovjakova D.; Wilson H.; Noble J.; Prentice J.E.B.; Brasnic L.; Papala P.; Waite R.; Hatem S.M.K.; Hamad H.H.M.A.; Lilani M.J.; Hardwick S.; Pritchard W.; Cairns D.; Lamuren E.; Thomas J.; Eve M.; Gabiana P.; Matias S.; Harris S.; Christmas E.; Brockbank J.; Mackinnon L.; Chrysikopoulou M.; Vo O.K.; George R.J.; Alsaarti R.; Mohrsen S.; Macleod C.; Grossi I.; Feetham J.; Almousa O.; Lyle A.; Victoria A.; Fox C.; Mitchell C.; Kara C.; Catley C.; Shea D.; Cranmer K.; Sach L.; Willsher L.; Vitaglione M.; Forsey M.; Fox N.; Arnold R.; Reid S.; Cotterell S.; Smolen S.; Lester Y.; Dean A.; Fitchett J.; Hoyle R.; Duberley S.; Goddard W.; Lunney C.; Ogbeide C.; Mcsorland D.; Gibson M.; Riley M.R.; Bradley P.; Thomas Z.; Giles E.; Patel H.; Pathirana J.; Chappel P.; Balasingam S.; Webb S.; Elshobaky E.; Challen K.; Ibrahim M.; Connor S.; Aprjanto A.; Ghosh A.; Amer E.; Sinclair J.; Smith T.; Freitas T.D.; Smith J.; Peachey J.; Clymer J.; Squire R.; Lee A.R.; Szekeres C.; Jessup-Dunton E.; Irvine G.; Brookman I.; Grant I.; Abbas K.; Wanigabadu L.; Futcher M.; Awadalkarim M.; Parker M.; Thammaiah Y.; Blows G.R.; Evans L.; Rebolledo M.; Macfarlane R.; Felix R.B.; Baker E.; Clarke J.; Dinglasan M.; Aldridge P.; Marshall S.; Helyar S.; Kunnath T.; Baldwin G.; Lowdell J.; Vallotton N.; Dasilva R.; Sharaf T.; Awe A.; Kerr-Winter B.; Anomelechi E.; Emond F.; Sennitt H.; Khan I.; Aderounmu I.; Bath J.; Woods J.; Dudden K.; Rupchandani K.; Mccafferty L.; Aaron L.; Al-Mousa M.; Okere N.; Scott O.; Edwards R.; Copson S.; Burke S.A.; Nawaz S.; Muhammad Y.; Noor A.; Tizon A.; Passalacqua C.; Qureshi E.F.; Malik F.I.; Jaafaru H.I.; Raees H.; Khaliq M.A.; Layawen N.; Shah R.; Torres S.L.G.; Guglani S.; Ramraj S.; Sharma S.; Hassan T.M.; Betos V.; Drexel A.; Sakutombo D.; Mendes F.; Furreed H.; Morris M.G.; James M.; Fong T.; Hartin D.; Lloyd G.; Sundarraj S.T.; Rivers V.; Kelly C.; Sutherland H.; Boast M.; Kisakye E.; Britton H.; Sebastian J.; Puscas M.R.; George S.; Olawale-Fasua W.; Wood D.; Kaur J.; King S.; Heeley C.; Davy G.; Wilson G.; Bennett K.; Allsop L.; Gill M.; Thorpe N.; Turner S.; Whitworth V.; Prendergast A.D.; Jones A.; Sheppard C.; Jones K.A.; Mcgregor K.; Sekar P.; Aeman S.; O'donnell S.P.; Griffin S.; Sheikh A.; Chintamani A.; Shrestha B.; Bisht D.; Saliu E.J.; Fadhlillah F.; Mahmoud M.Y.; Wasil M.; Ragupathy R.; Moghal Z.S.; John A.; Lockett C.; Tomkinson J.; Rose K.; Aziz M.; Keenan N.; Sandhu B.; Bentley C.; Phiri E.; Adams L.; Page M.; Seaman R.; Asnani S.; Taylor C.; Butt M.; Doherty W.J.; Da'costa A.; Adedeji A.D.; Ibeh C.O.; Oduware E.O.; Dolan H.; Ofori L.; Brassington L.; Olusoga O.; Nkala P.; Gurung S.; Williams S.; Ndlovu T.; Akhuemokhan Z.B.; Gulati D.; Akande M.; Oshiotse S.; Chilcott G.; Battishill W.; Wood J.M.; Hendry R.; Pottelbergh T.M.V.; T-Michael H.; Rothwell J.; Connolly K.; Cooper L.; Quli A.; Corr H.; Orourke L.; Pettet A.; Kariyadil B.; Pile J.; Gallamoza K.; Foo M.; O'connell P.; Kirkup A.; Hall J.; Hudson L.; Waddell G.; Mckie H.; Beck J.; Harrison M.; Ternent M.; Crispin P.; Aladesanmi A.; Ahmed A.; Thomson D.; Moth G.; Haslam J.; Killeen J.; Philbin J.; Howard-Sandy L.; Warran S.; Munt S.; Humphrey C.; Langridge E.; Otoole K.; Pule P.; Miln R.; Death Y.; Davies A.; Dunn E.; Brittain E.; Kohler G.; Stacey J.; Bloch M.; Murphy M.; Griffiths O.; Awbery H.; Oyindamola O.; Aor S.S.; Gribbin A.; Edwards C.; Vorwerk C.; Jackman D.; Brown G.; Daly Z.; Naiyeju A.A.; Arrayeh A.; Giubileo A.; Sarvesh B.; Jafferji D.; Thornton H.; Mckenzie I.; Okwori I.; Rudnicka J.; Nasr M.; Hassan M.; Aliu M.; Osunsanya O.; Abdulsalam S.; Mbaekwe S.; Shedwell S.; Wickramanayake U.; Abdullahi Y.; Mcclelland B.; Willshire K.; Knight A.; Beranova E.; Tutt G.; Ramos H.; Mcarthur C.; Khoo E.; Hughes E.; Austin K.; Doran K.; Gordon M.W.G.; Oshaughnessy O.; Worgan R.; Matthews A.; Baddeley A.; Morris A.; Ndungu A.; Peters C.; Walker L.; Tilbury N.; Lubbock S.; Mapatuna C.; Kehlenbeck E.; Curtis K.; Tonkins M.; King P.; Walker R.; Gabriel Z.; Titu H.; Coyle J.; Waddington N.; Chotai C.; Ward C.; Elliott L.; Henshall A.; Pogorodnaja A.; Knowles C.; Mascia G.; Rai S.G.; Bartley S.; Ko S.T.S.; Perera Y.; Conroy E.; Nicholson J.; Taylor J.; Flanagan R.; Wilce A.; Lindsay C.; Bascombe C.; Osey C.; Tiller H.; Rogers L.; Agius N.; Barratt N.; Pitts S.; Mohammed A.; Eihebholo A.; Olaifa A.; Bowyer C.; Sutcliffe E.; Bishop O.J.; Jenkins O.; Kyriakides O.; Thomas S.; Ali S.; Mason S.; Ripsher W.; Cousins E.; Dhande K.S.; Wright L.; Bolus A.; Sykes D.; Faronbi G.O.; Slade L.; Page R.; Maiti M.; Hekal M.; Khadka S.; Border T.; Wilson W.; Lowe A.; Evans C.; Moceivei C.; Mcavoy D.; Hay F.; Homyer K.; Dunne M.; Goldmann N.; Mitchell R.; Geoghegan A.; Entwistle J.; *Marsh A.; *Stephens A.; *O'connell G.; *Gibson H.; *Stickley J.; *Witt J.; *Beekes M.; *Sowailam M.; *Ali N.A.; Stan A.; Boalch A.; Demetriou C.; Flitney C.; Munday C.; Khoory C.; Carter D.; Gould E.; Evans G.; Elghonemy H.; Latham J.; Zamari K.; Ramos L.; Howie L.; Gunning S.; Haskins W.; Ayodeji Y.S.; Potts A.; Kay D.; Perez J.; Holden J.; Pendlebury J.; Cawley K.; Shahedy N.; Doonan R.; Blevings R.; Anthony A.; Trim F.; Hadebe B.; Pherson A.M.; Mphansi E.; Tysoe S.; Masunda B.; Galliford J.; Pestell S.; Patel S.; Pickard A.; Hoare B.; Cox C.; Hart D.; Amarnani D.; Fay E.; Khedarun F.M.; Collins F.; Sysum K.; Fung M.; Corbin N.; Patel N.; Moss P.; Marques R.; Johnson R.; Parmar S.; Sarker S.; Lawrence G.; Romero M.R.; Felix R.M.B.; Raju T.; Clarson S.; Clarke B.D.; Philp E.; Wren G.; Gallacher S.; Sharir A.; Andrews B.; Faint C.; Caines C.; Everett C.; Newman D.; Cruz G.D.L.; Hughes G.; Carey H.; Reavley H.; Ayre J.; Quan J.; Caines L.; Wedge-Bull M.; Alzaatreh M.; Chong N.; Anthony N.; Chandler S.; Walford S.; Sharir T.; White T.; Heslop-Harrison W.; Dunphy A.; Trenwith B.; Coelho B.; Hunter L.; Moran R.; Pemberton A.; Suggitt B.; Pimlott B.; Bates C.; Tibke C.; Pegler D.; Daniel D.; Lamond D.; Pureti G.; Baxter H.; Melville J.; Zai K.F.T.; Mullane K.; Phyu M.P.; Gabriels N.; Mills R.; Bennett S.; Blenkinsop S.; Vikramadhithyan S.; Barnes S.; Hopkins S.; Doherty-Walls T.; Coughlan T.; Kinder J.; Clark M.; Islam M.N.; Gray R.; Ford A.; Florey L.; O'neill M.; Aspa P.; Mercer P.; Ackerley A.; Ironside J.; Haynes L.; Garcia B.; Elkhodair S.; Enegela A.; Leech C.; Hassanali F.; Rashid H.; Lalji J.; Akpoghene M.; Enegela O.A.; Hafeez-Bore O.; Oluwaseun O.; Pelasur R.; Ayres R.; Tariq R.; Mchenry R.D.; Bains B.; Jones B.; Tarant E.; Mundy M.; Pearse R.; Sibtain S.; Day A.; Campbell B.; Stagg C.; Jones D.; Atwal I.; Tompkins K.; Parsons P.; Dancer R.; Balaican A.M.; Ellis C.; Ede C.H.; Joseph J.; Hardaker O.; Ridwan R.; Khan S.; Zhao X.; Wood L.; Tampsett R.; Rao S.; Castillo W.P.H.; Ticehurst F.; Rocha J.G.D.; Chivers K.; Vecchione N.; Kader N.; Wilson S.; Adhikari S.; Ramsundar S.; Felix F.; Johnston R.; Jin Y.; Ingall E.; Rand J.; Solly R.; Naeem S.; Stirrup S.; Priestley V.; Pun A.; Olosho O.Z.; Board S.;

Citation:

Emergency Medicine Journal. 2025 Aug 19;42(9):585-592.

Abstract:

Background: Numerous strategies have been developed to rapidly rule-out acute coronary syndrome (ACS) using high-sensitivity troponin. We aimed to establish their performance in terms of emergency care length of stay (LOS) in real-world practice. Method(s): A multicentre observational cohort study in 94 UK sites between March and April 2023. Recruitment was preferably prospective, with retrospective recruitment also allowed. Adults presenting to the ED with chest pain triggering assessment for possible ACS were eligible. Primary outcome was emergency care LOS. Secondary outcomes were index rate of acute myocardial infarction (MI), time to be seen (TTBS), disposition and discharge diagnosis. Details of ACS rule-out strategies in use were collected from local guidelines. Mixed effects linear regression models tested the association between rule-out strategy and LOS. Result(s): 8563 eligible patients were recruited, representing 5.3% of all ED attendances. Median LOS for all patients was 333 min (IQR 225, 510.5), for admitted patients was 460 min (IQR 239.75, 776.25) and for discharged patients was 313 min (IQR 221, 451). Heterogeneity was seen in the rule-out strategies with regard to recommended troponin timing. There was no significant difference in LOS in discharged patients between rule-out strategies defined by single and serial troponin timing (p=0.23 and p=0.41). The index rate of acute MI was 15.2% (1301/8563). Median TTBS was 120 min (IQR 57, 212). 24.4% (2087/8563) of patients were partly managed in a same day emergency care unit and 70% (5934/8563) of patients were discharged from emergency care. Conclusion(s): Despite heterogeneity in the ACS rule-out strategies in use and widespread adoption of rapid rule-out approaches, this study saw little effect on LOS in real-world practice. Suspected cardiac chest pain still accounts for a significant proportion of UK ED attendances. ED system pressures are likely to be explanatory, but further research is needed to understand the reasons for the unrealised potential of these strategies.

DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2024-214616

Link to full-text [NHS OpenAthens account required]

Altmetrics: