CJEM Articles: Anne-Maree Kelly
Displaying 1-6 of 6 results
-
May
2011
13
3
Anne-Maree Kelly, Barry Gunn, MBBS, Siang Ong
Objective: The Quebec shoulder dislocation rule is a recently derived clinical decision rule to guide physicians on the selective use of radiography in patients with shoulder dislocation. The aim of this study was to validate the Quebec shoulder dislocation rule.
Methods: This was a secondary analysis of data collected in a retrospective cohort study. All patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) between January 1, 2003, and October 31, 2008, with a diagnosis of shoulder dislocation or fracture-dislocation were identified from ED management databases. Data collected included demographics, mechanism of injury, and presence of fracture. The outcome of interest was predictive performance of the Quebec shoulder dislocation rule for patients aged under 40 years on this cohort. Data analysis is descriptive.
Results: Of the 346 patients identified, 196 were aged under 40 years, and 174 (89%) were male; the median age was 25 years (interquartile range 21–29 years), and 58 were recurrent dislocations. One hundred sixteen patients (59%) met the Quebec high-risk criteria, and 80 (41%) were classified as low risk. In the 196 patients aged less than 40 years, 12 fractures as defined were identified (6%). When applied to this cohort, the Quebec clinical decision rule had a sensitivity of 0.42 (95% CI 0.16–0.71), a specificity of 0.40 (95% CI 0.33–0.47), and a negative predictive value of 0.91 (95% CI 0.82–0.96).
Conclusion: The Quebec shoulder dislocation rule had poor sensitivity for clinically significant fractures associated with shoulder dislocations in young patients (aged 16–39 years) presenting to an Australian emergency department. Its use cannot be recommended. -
March
2011
13
2
Anne-Maree Kelly, Lim Beng Leong
Objectives:Butyrophenones have been reported to provide effective migraine relief in the emergency department (ED). We conducted a systematic review of the evidence for their use in the ED.
Data source:We searched the Cochrane, Medline, Embase, and CINAHL databases.
Study selection:Included studies were randomized trials of a parenteral butyrophenone (droperidol, haloperidol) versus placebo or a comparator in migraine or benign headache with results available in English. Study quality was determined using the Jadad score. Six articles were included.
Data extraction:Primary outcomes were subjective or objective headache relief (> 50% improvement in visual analogue scale scores). Secondary outcomes included side effects. We reported pooled odds ratios (ORs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for subjective or objective headache relief for butyrophenones versus placebo or comparator agents.
Data synthesis:Three studies reported subjective headache relief with a butyrophenone versus placebo or meperidine in migraine. Two studies reported objective headache relief with droperidol versus prochlorperazine, whereas one study compared droperidol versus olanzapine in benign headache. The pooled OR for subjective headache relief was 8.08 (95% CI 1.54–42.30) for a butyrophenone versus placebo, whereas it was 1.50 (95% CI 0.33–6.77) for droperidol versus meperidine in migraine. The pooled OR for objective headache relief was 2.96 (95% CI 1.36–6.43) for droperidol versus prochlorperazine in benign headache. Rates of side effects were 10 to 45%; akathesia and sedation were the most common.
Conclusions:Butyrophenones are effective for the relief of migraine or benign headache. However, adverse effects make it difficult to recommend butyrophenones above agents with similar effectiveness and fewer problems. -
November
2009
11
6
Anne-Maree Kelly, Catherine M. Clement, Debra Eagles, Ian G. Stiell, Jamie Brehaut, Jeffrey J. Perry, Suzanne Mason
Objective: Patients with acute headache often undergo com puted tomography (CT) followed by a lumbar puncture to rule out subarachnoid hemorrhage. Our international study exam ined current practice, the perceived need for a clinical deci sion rule for acute headache and the required sensitivity for such a rule.
Methods: We approached 2100 emergency physicians from 4 countries (Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States) to participate in our survey by sampling the membership of their emergency associations. We used a modified Dillman technique with 3-5 notifications and a prenotification letter employing a combination of electronic mail and postal mail. Physicians were questioned about neu rologically intact patients who presented with headache. Analysis included both descriptive statistics for the entire sample and stratification by country.
Results: The total response rate was 54.7% (1149/2100). Respondents were primarily male (75.5%), with a mean age of 42.5 years and a mean 12.3 years of emergency depart ment (ED) experience. Of the physicians who responded, 49.5% thought all acute headache patients should be investi gated with CT and 57.4% felt CT should always be followed by lumbar puncture. Of the respondents, 95.7% reported they would consider using a clinical decision rule for patients with acute headache to rule out subarachnoid hemorrhage. Respondents deemed the median sensitivity required by such a rule to be 99% (interquartile range 98%-99%). Approxi mately 1 in 5 physicians suggested that 100% sensitivity was required.
Conclusion: Emergency physicians report that they would welcome a clinical decision rule for headache that would determine which patients require costly or invasive tests to rule out subarachnoid hemorrhage. The required sensitivity of such a rule was realistic. These results will inform and inspire the development of clinical decision rules for acute headache in the ED.
-
May
2007
9
3
Anne-Maree Kelly, Debra Kerr, Teresa M. Cosgriff
Objective: The San Francisco Syncope Rule (SFSR) aims to identify patients with syncope who are at risk for short-term serious adverse outcomes. It has been reported to have high sensitivity and the potential to decrease admission rates. The aim of this study was to validate the SFSR in the Australasian setting.
Methods: Our prospective, observational cohort study identified patients with syncope using emergency department (ED) databases. Data, including demographics, the presence of SFSR predictors and ED disposition, were collected either during ED stay or by explicit medical record review. Patients were followed up after 7 days for defined serious outcomes (i.e., death, myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, pulmonary embolism, stroke, subarachnoid hemorrhage, significant hemorrhage or unplanned ED re-presentation). We analyzed sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. We compared the results with current physician-based clinical practice.
Results: We studied 89 patients with a median age of 74 years. Of them, 42% were male and the admission rate was 39%. Ten patients (11%) suffered a serious event. The SFSR was 90% sensitive (95% confidence interval [CI] 60%-98%) and 57% specific (95% CI 46%-67%) for predicting patients with a defined serious adverse event. The SFSR also categorized 48% of patients as "high risk." If the SFSR had been strictly applied, the admission rate would have increased by 9% and 1 serious adverse event would have been missed.
Conclusion: The SFSR demonstrated 90% sensitivity in this validation study. Strict application of the SFSR would have increased hospital admissions but would not have identified all adverse outcomes. In our setting, clinician judgement performed as well as the syncope rule, with a baseline admission rate of 36%.
-
May
2005
7
3
Anne-Maree Kelly, Caroline Barnes, Catherine Brumby
Objectives: Traditionally, patients have to wait until assessed by a physician for opioid analgesia to be administered, which contributes to delays to analgesia. Western Hospital developed a protocol enabling nurses to initiate opioid analgesia prior to medical assessment for selected conditions. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of this protocol on time to first opioid dose in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with renal or biliary colic.
Methods: This was an explicit medical record review of all adult patients with an ED discharge diagnosis of renal or biliary colic presenting to a metropolitan teaching hospital ED. Patients were identified via the ED data management system. Data collected included demographics, condition, triage category, time of presentation, whether analgesia was nurse-initiated or not, and interval from arrival to first opioid analgesic dose. The narcotic drug register for the relevant period was also searched to cross-check whether opiates were doctor- or nurse-initiated.
Results: There were 58 presentations in the nurse-initiated opioid analgesia group and 99 in the non-nurse-initiated analgesia group. Groups were reasonably well matched for gender, triage category and time of presentation, but there was a higher proportion of biliary colic in the non-nurse-initiated analgesia group. Median time to first analgesic dose was 31 minutes in the nurse-initiated group and 57 minutes in the non-nurse-initiated analgesia group (effect size, 26 minutes; 95% confidence interval 16-36 min; p < 0.0001]. There were no major adverse events in either group.
Conclusion: A nurse-initiated opioid analgesia protocol reduces delays to opioid analgesia for patients with renal and biliary colic.
-
May
2004
6
3
Anne-Maree Kelly, Debra Kerr, Luke Bradshaw
Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the inter-rater agreement between physicians and nurses regarding eligibility for application of the Canadian C-Spine Rule (CCR) and assessment of the criteria of the CCR.
Methods: In this observational study, nurses and physicians independently assessed the CCR criteria in a convenience sample of patients with potential C-spine injury. Data were entered onto separate data sheets. The outcomes of interest were the inter-rater agreement between nurse and physician regarding eligibility for application of the rule, for assessment of each component of the rule and for interpretation of the rule overall, assessed by kappa analysis.
Results: In total, 88 cases were eligible for analysis. Physicians and nurses agreed on which patients were eligible for CCR application in 96.6% of cases. Inter-rater agreement for most CCR criteria was good (*
> 0.61), with the exception of midline tenderness (* = 0.58) and range of motion, which most nurses did not test.
Conclusion: This study shows that nurses have the potential to reliably apply the Canadian C-Spine Rule but require further training in the assessment of midline tenderness and range of motion.
