Comparison of self‐reported EDACS versus physician‐reported EDACS for the triage of chest pain patients in the emergency department

• Published in: Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open Vol. 2; no. 2; pp. e12393 - n/a
• Main Authors: Ng, Mingwei, Liu, Zhenghong, Tan, Jean Su Ling, Ponampalam, R.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States John Wiley and Sons Inc 01-04-2021; Wiley
• Subjects: Brief Research Report; Cardiology; chest pain scores; EDACS; emergency department; MACE; triage; emergency department; MACE; chest pain scores; triage; EDACS
• ISSN: 2688-1152; 2688-1152
• DOI: 10.1002/emp2.12393

Objectives
Currently, there are no guidelines to help triage nurses identify high‐risk emergency department chest pain patients. Patient self‐reporting of Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Score (EDACS) could facilitate more reliable triage compared to nursing gestalt, but this novel concept is untested. This study hypothesizes that because EDACS requires minimal clinical gestalt to derive, self‐reported EDACS (S‐EDACS) at triage is likely to correlate well with traditional physician‐reported EDACS (P‐EDACS) and have potential application as a triage tool.
Methods
This single‐center pilot prospective cohort study analyzed 60 patients who completed a self‐reported questionnaire upon triage to determine their S‐EDACS. This was matched against P‐EDACS, derived from an identical questionnaire completed by the blinded treating physician. Secondary endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) within 30 days (all‐cause mortality, myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization) was assessed by 2 blinded emergency physicians who independently reviewed the electronic medical records. S/P‐EDACS also were benchmarked against nursing gestalt (based on triage to low/high‐acuity areas) and emergency physician gestalt (disposition and admitting/discharge diagnoses).
Results
There was perfect agreement between S/P‐EDACS in this study (K = 1.00). Fifteen patients (25.0%) had minor discordances in their absolute S/P‐EDACS that did not affect risk stratification. Of these, 11/15 (73.3%) had higher S‐EDACS, suggesting S‐EDACS is more likely to safely overcall MACE risk. S‐EDACS outperformed nursing gestalt, triaging a greater proportion of patients (71.7% vs 35.0%) as low risk without compromising patient safety, and demonstrated similar accuracy as emergency physician gestalt.
Conclusion
S‐EDACS strongly correlates with P‐EDACS with perfect agreement and has potential to be used as a triage tool.