Abstract
Background
Many patients present to emergency departments (ED) in U.S. for evaluation of acute
coronary syndrome, and a rapid electrocardiogram (ECG) and interpretation are imperative
for initial triage. A growing number of advanced practice practitioners (APP) (e.g.
physician assistants, nurse practitioners) are assisting patient care in the ED.
Purpose
This study aims to compare the interpretation of ECGs by experienced APPs, each having
10 or more years of experience, with resident physicians and attending physicians.
Patients and methods
99 ED providers were stratified into attendings, residents at varying levels, and
APPs were tested to interpret 36 ECGs from a database of ECGs initially interpreted
to be ST elevation myocardial infarctions, of which 24 were determined to have a culprit
lesion by coronary intervention.
Results
Attending physicians were the most sensitive (0.86, 95% CI of 0.80 to 0.92) and specific
(0.69, 95% Cl of 0.60 to 0.79) at interpreting ECGs, but APPs and physicians in their
first year of practice out of residency were almost equally as sensitive [(0.82, 95%
CI of 0.76 to 0.88) and (0.82, 95% CI of 0.76 to 0.88)] and specific [(0.62, 95% cl
of 0.52 to 0.73) and (0.65, 95% Cl of 0.56 to 0.75)].
Conclusion
This study suggests the possibility of changing ED workflow where experienced APPs
can be responsible for initial screening of an ECG, thus allowing fewer interruptions
for ED physicians.
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 MedicineAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- 2015 ACC/AHA/SCAI focused update on primary percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: an update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention and the 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.Circulation. 2016; 133: 1135-1147
- Emergency physician accuracy in interpreting electrocardiograms with potential ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: is it enough?.Acute Card Care. 2016; 18: 7-10
- Physician accuracy in interpreting potential ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction electrocardiograms.J Am Heart Assoc. 2013; 2e000268
- The effect of clinical history on accuracy of electrocardiograph interpretation among doctors working in emergency departments.Med J Aust. 2012; 197: 161-165
- AHA/ACCF/HRS recommendations for the standardization and interpretation of the electro-cardiogram.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 53: 1003-1011
- National study on the frequency, types, causes, and consequences of voluntarily reported emergency department medication errors.J Emerg Med. 2011; 40: 485-492
- Association of interruptions with an increased risk and severity of medication administration errors.Arch Intern Med. 2010; 170: 683-690
- The comparison of physician to computer interpreted electrocardiograms on ST-elevation myocardial infarction door-to-balloon times.Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2016; 15: 22-25
Article Info
Publication History
Published online: January 27, 2020
Accepted:
January 27,
2020
Received in revised form:
January 24,
2020
Received:
May 24,
2019
Identification
Copyright
© 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
