Introduction: Acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is an uncommon, life-threatening emergency that is frequently misdiagnosed. The Canadian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis of AAS were developed in order to reduce the frequency of misdiagnoses and number of diagnostic tests. As part of the guidelines, a clinical decision aid was developed in order to facilitate clinician decision-making based on practice recommendations. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators among physicians to implementation of the decision aid. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with emergency room physicians working at 5 sites distributed between urban academic and rural settings. We used purposive sampling, contacting ED physicians until data saturation was reached. Interview questions were designed to understand potential barriers and facilitators affecting the probability of decision aid uptake and accurate application of the tool. Two independent raters coded interview transcripts using an integrative approach to theme identification, combining an inductive approach to identification of themes within an organizing framework (Theoretical Domains Framework), discrepancies in coding were resolved through discussion until consensus was reached. Results: A majority of interviewees anticipated that the decision aid would support clinical decision making and risk stratification while reducing resource use and missed diagnoses. Facilitators identified included validation and publication of the guidelines as well as adoption by peers. Barriers to implementation and application of the tool included the fact that the use of D-dimer and knowledge of the rationale for its use in the investigation of AAS were not widespread. Furthermore, scoring components were, at times, out of alignment with clinician practices and understanding of risk factors. The complexity of the decision aid was also identified as a potential barrier to accurate use. Conclusion: Physicians were amenable to using the AAS decision aid to support clinical decision-making and to reduce resource use, particularly within rural contexts. Key barriers identified included the complexity of scoring and inclusion criteria, and the variable acceptance of D-dimer among clinicians. These barriers should be addressed prior to implementation of the decision aid during validation studies of the clinical practice guidelines.

Introduction: Lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) can result in serious adverse events, including recurrent bleeding, need for intervention and death. Endoscopy is important in the management of LGIB, however gastroenterologists have limited resources to safe endoscopy. Risk stratification of LGIB patients can aid physicians in disposition decisions. Objective: to develop a clinical decision tool to accurately identify LGIB patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) who are at risk for 30-day serious adverse events. Methods: We conducted a health records review and included 372 adult ED patients who presented with an acute LGIB. The outcome was a 30-day composite outcome consisting of all-cause death, recurrent LGIB, need for intervention to control the bleed and ICU admission. A second researcher confirmed data-collection of 10% of the data and we calculated a -value for inter-rater reliability. We analyzed the data using stepwise backwards selection and SELECTION=SCORE option and calculated the diagnostic accuracy of the final model. Results: Age 75 years, hemoglobin 100 g/L, INR 2.0, a bloody stool in the ED and a past medical history of colorectal polyps were significant predictors in the multivariable regression analysis. The AUC was 0.83 (95% CI 0.77-0.89), sensitivity 0.96 (0.90-1.00), specificity 0.53 (0.48-0.59), and negative likelihood ratio 0.08 (0.02-0.30) for a cut-off score of 1. Conclusion: This model showed good ability to identify LGIB patients at low risk for adverse events as evidenced by the high AUC, sensitivity and negative likelihood ratio. Future, large prospective studies should be done to confirm the data, after which it should be validated and implemented.

Introduction: Syncope is responsible for up to 5% of emergency department visits. Vasovagal syncope (VVS) is the most common subtype and can have significant quality of life implications as it is often recurrent. Clinicians treating VVS have limited treatment options available to them and often struggle with prognostication. The aim of our study was to identify patient-specific determinants of VVS improvement or cessation. Methods: Patients (pts) from the Prevention of Syncope Trials (POST) 1 and 2 were included in this study. All patients had VVS according to tilt table testing or a diagnostic point score. Patients had fainted ≥1 time in the previous year and all were followed for up to 1 year after enrollment. Data are presented as median (IQR). Complete responders (CR) did not faint in follow-up; partial responders (PR) fainted ≥1/year less than prior year but did not stop; and non-responders (NR) did not improve or stop. Results: There were 392 patients: 126 males, median age 34 (23,50) who had fainted for 10 (3,22) years and followed for a median of 363 (148,376) days. There were 225 CR (57%), 120 PR (31%) and 47 NR (12%). PR subjects were younger: 27 (24,33) years compared to CR (36 (32,42)) years and NR (36 (29,47)) years (p<0.05). Receiver operator characteristic analysis showed age predicted PR (AUC=0.62). Lifetime fainting frequency was 0.67 (0.14,2.00) faints per year, increasing to 4 (2,10) faints in the pre-year and decreasing to 0 (0,1.9) faints in the post-year (p<0.0001). Pts had similar syncope frequency in the distant past (PR, 1.14 faints/year; CR, 0.68 faints/year; NR, 0.58 faints/year) but PR pts worsened markedly prior to enrollment. PR subjects fainted much more in the prior year: 10 (6,18) faints compared CR (3 (2,3) faints, p<0.0001) and NR (2 (2,4) faints, p<0.05). Receiver operator characteristic analysis showed prior year faints predicted PR well (AUC=0.81). There was no significant interaction with treatment (metoprolol in POST 1, fludrocortisone in POST 2). Conclusion: After specialist consultation, 57% of VVS patients stop fainting and 31% improve incompletely without a significant treatment effect. Patients who will improve incompletely can be accurately selected based on younger age and more frequent syncope. Older patients with less frequent syncope are 83% likely to stop fainting. These findings will help counsel pts and select candidates for medical therapy.

Introduction: The Canadian CT Head Rule (‘the rule’) is widely used across the country and its use is specifically recommended by Choosing Wisely Canada. Studies in Canadian hospitals have shown appropriate declines in CT scans when decision tools have been made readily available and useable at the point of care. Research into the implementation of the Canadian CT Head Rule in particular has shown that barriers to its use include an inability to accurately recall each criteria and forgetting to attempt to apply the rule altogether. In an attempt to provide our clinicians with effective access to the rule, we modified CT requisitions and order procedures to facilitate the use of the rule for every head CT in our emergency department (ED). Methods: A quality improvement (QI) approach was used to pilot, implement, and evaluate the modified CT requisition at our hospital. Several Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles involving stakeholders in the hospital resulted in iterative changes to the requisition leading to the implemented version. The new requisition required physicians to indicate which rules or exclusion criteria were met and this was made mandatory for all head CTs ordered. Demographic data was collected on all patients presenting to the ED on age, gender, CTAS level, disposition, and length of stay. Data on which exclusion criteria were appropriate, the rules met leading to CT scans, whether each requisition was used appropriately, and whether there was a significant injury found was collected for each patient receiving a head CT after implementation. Results: In our primary outcome (% of ED visits receiving a head CT), preliminary results have demonstrated a relative reduction in head CT ordering of 10.9%. Our study at completion is powered to detect a ~10% relative change in ordering behaviour, and a Chi square of the data to date yields a P-value of 0.0147. There are no significant differences in visit volume or any of the demographics collected to date. Final results including analysis are anticipated in March, 2016. Conclusion: Preliminary results on this simple, no-cost intervention are very promising. The reduction in head CTs ordered suggests that with mandated access to an easy-to-use, well validated decision tool, ED physicians have been able to confidently defer scans that have a very low risk of having any significant injury present, reducing cost, radiation exposure, and perhaps time in department.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop an health technology assessment (HTA) decision tool to support the decision-making process on health technologies for hospital decision makers in cross-border regions.

Methods: Several methods were used to collect information necessary to develop the cross-border mini-HTA decision tool. The literature was inventoried on HTA in border regions and local settings and the use of HTA by local decision makers. Semi-structured interviews with hospital decision makers in cross-border regions were also performed. Based on group discussion of the resulting information, it was decided to use the Danish mini-HTA guideline as a starting point for development of the decision tool. After finishing the first version of the decision tool it was tested in two pilot studies

Results: Some questions in the Danish mini-HTA guideline were not relevant. Other questions needed rephrasing and questions about cross-border situations were added. The pilots showed several missing topics, including legal questions and reimbursement issues. The final decision tool consists of three sections: a general section, a section for hospitals not cooperating cross-border and a section for hospitals that are cooperating with hospitals across a national or regional border.

Conclusions: Based on our literature search, this may be the first cross-border mini-HTA decision tool. The decision tool will be of help for healthcare professionals and decision makers in border settings who would like to use HTA evidence to support their decision-making process.

A stroke can be a catastrophic experience. Patients are confronted with alarming symptoms and then a devastating diagnosis, after which they are expected to make an “informed decision” regarding intervention. Informed decision-making is a term that, unlike informed consent, implies that the decision is made by the physician, the patient and the family based on available evidence and information. The 3-hour treatment window for thrombolysis in ischemic stroke imparts very little time for a clinician to sit down with a patient and present information in an unbiased, useful manner. The purpose of this paper is to offer a tool that may assist the physician, the patient and the family in making an informed decision in a time-sensitive manner for thrombolytic intervention in stroke. This tool visually displays outcomes and the role of chance in an intuitive “spin the wheel” type fashion. Until at least May 2011, an interactive version of this clinical tool kit will be available for download at www.sem-bc.com/cvatoolkit.