Adherence to Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol for Chest Pain in Five Emergency Departments in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In this study we sought to to assess the extent to which emergency physicians adhered to an institutional protocol for rapid chest pain assessment that incorporates a high sensitivity troponin I (hs-TnI) assay. We also sought to characterize clinical outcomes stratified by protocol adherence. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study that included all adult patients presenting to five major metropolitan hospital emergency departments (ED) with suspected cardiac chest pain who had at least one troponin measured. The study period was November 9, 2020-June 20, 2022. The primary outcome was protocol adherence for indeterminate-risk and high-risk patients, as defined by the protocol in use at the time of each patient's presentation to hospital. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) are reported with associated 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: A total of 14,027 patients were included in the study, among whom 8,962 (63.9%) were classified as low risk, 4,064 (29.0%) as indeterminate risk, and 1,001 (7.1%) who were in the high-risk/rule-in group. Overall, 35.9% of patients had care that adhered to the chest pain pathway protocol-22.1% of indeterminate-risk patients and 91.6% of high-risk/rule-in patients. Protocol adherence among indeterminate-risk patients was 6.6% when the initial troponin was in the range of 4-19 nanograms per liter (ng/L) and 75.4% for initial troponin levels 20-99 ng/L. Male sex was most strongly associated with protocol adherence; among those receiving adherent care, 65.8% were male compared to 34.2% female (aOR 1.67; 95% CI, 1.46-1.91). Patients in the non-adherent group with an initial troponin 4-19 ng/L experienced a significantly higher incidence of major adverse cardiac events (4.5% vs 1.7%, P < .001), compared to those in the low-risk group. CONCLUSION: Adherence to proposed assessment protocols for patients presenting to the ED with chest pain was low. This lack of adherence appears to disproportionally affect females and is associated with poor outcomes. Improving adherence to evidence-based guidelines in this setting is urgently needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".