CJEM Articles: James Christenson
Displaying 1-5 of 5 results
-
September
2011
13
5
Andrew Affleck, Andrew H. Travers, Christian Vaillancourt, James Christenson, Jason Slenys, Martin H. Osmond, MD; Ian G. Stiell, MD; Justin Maloney, MD; Norman Epstein, MD; Sheldon Cheskes, Patrick Forgie
-
September
2003
5
5
Anona Thorne, Eric Grafstein, Grant Innes, James Christenson, Julie Westman
Background: Triage reliability studies typically use hypothetical scenarios and weighted kappa scores where agreement within one level is considered satisfactory. But if triage category is used to help define ED case-mix groups for comparative or benchmarking processes, agreement on exact triage level and major system involved is important. Our hypothesis was that a computerized menu that links presenting complaints to preferred triage levels (PC-linked triage) would provide high triage reliability.
Objectives: Our objective was to assess inter-rater reliability of PC-linked triage using the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) in a real-time clinical setting, considering agreement on exact triage level and primary body system involved.
Methods: On duty triage nurses entered patient presenting complaint and PC-linked triage level as per standard procedure. In a convenience sample of patients, a second nurse, blinded to triage assignment, observed the triage interaction and independently entered presenting complaint and triage level on a dummy terminal.
Results: During the study, 15 nurse pairs triaged 266 patients. Study patients matched actual emergency department case mix closely. Triage nurses agreed exactly in 74% of cases and within one level in 94% of cases. The unweighted kappa value was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.73) and the quadratic weighted kappa value was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.68-0.81). Kappa for agreement on major system involved was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.69-0.91).
Conclusion: PC-linked triage has high inter-rater reliability in a real-time clinical setting. PC-linked triage may be useful as one factor in defining case-mix groups for benchmarking and comparative purposes.
-
September
2002
4
5
Grant Innes, James Christenson, James Hoekstra, Nathan Every, Paul Frederick, Raymond E. Jackson, Tiepu Liu, W. Brian Gibler, W. Douglas Weaver
Objective: Cardiac marker sensitivity depends on chest pain duration at the time of sampling. Our objective was to estimate the sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios of early CK-MB and myoglobin assays in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with nondiagnostic ECGs, stratified by the duration of ongoing chest pain at the time of ED assessment.
Methods: This was a prospective observational study carried out in 10 US and 2 Canadian EDs. Patients >25 years of age with ongoing chest pain and nondiagnostic ECGs were stratified by pain duration (0-4 h, 4-8 h, 8-12 h, >12 h). CK-MB and myoglobin assays were drawn at T = 0 (ED assessment) and T = 1 hr. Patients were followed for 7-14 days to identify all cases of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). ED test results were correlated with patient outcomes.
Results: Of 5005 eligible patients, 565 had AMI. Pain duration was 0-4 h in 3014 patients, 4-8 h in 961, 8-12 h in 487, and >12 h in 543. Marker sensitivity increased with pain duration, ranging from 28%-77% for CK-MB and 39%-73% for myoglobin. The maximal sensitivity achieved by a T = 0 assay was 73%, and this was in patients with 8-12 or >12 h of ongoing pain. No combination of tests achieved 90% sensitivity in any pain duration strata.
Conclusions: Regardless of chest pain duration, single assays and early serial markers (0+1 hr) do not rule out AMI; therefore, serial assays over longer observation periods are required. Likelihood ratios derived in this study will help physicians who use Bayesian analysis to determine post-test AMI likelihood in patients with chest pain. -
October
2000
2
4
Cosmas Leung, Grant Innes, James Christenson, Jeremy Etherington, Jonathan Berkowitz, Robert Chamberlain, Ross Berringer
Evaluation of physician practice is necessary, both to provide feedback for self-improvement and to guide department heads during yearly evaluations.
Objective: To develop and implement a peer-based performance evaluation tool and to measure reliability and physician satisfaction.
Methods: Each emergency physician in an urban emergency department evaluated their peers by completing a survey consisting of 21 questions on effectiveness in 4 categories: clinical practice, interaction with coworkers and the public, nonclinical departmental responsibilities, and academic activities. A sample of emergency nurses evaluated each emergency physician on a subset of 5 of the questions. Factor analysis was used to assess the reliability of the questions and categories. Intra-class correlation coefficients were calculated to determine inter-rater reliability. After receiving their peer evaluations, each physician rated the process's usefulness to the individual and the department.
Results: 225 surveys were completed on 16 physicians. Factor analysis did not distinguish the nonclinical and academic categories as distinct; therefore, the survey questions fell into 3 domains, rather than the 4 hypothesized. The overall intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.43 for emergency physicians, indicating moderate, but far from perfect, agreement. This suggests that variability exists between physician evaluators, and that multiple reviewers are probably required to provide a balanced physician evaluation. The intra-class correlation coefficient for emergency nurses was 0.11, suggesting poor reliability. Overall, 11 of 15 physicians reported the process valuable or mostly valuable, 3 of 15 were unsure and 1 of 15 reported that the process was definitely not valuable.
Conclusion: Physician evaluation by a single individual is probably unreliable. A useful physician peer evaluation tool can be developed. Most physicians view a personalized, broad-based, confidential peer review as valuable. -
July
2001
2
3
Brian Lahiffe, Christopher Fernandes, Eric Grafstein, Grant Innes, James Christenson, Jeremy Etherington, John J. Spinelli, Karen Wanger, Sarah Pennington
Introduction: Patients with suspected opioid overdose frequently require naloxone treatment. Despite recommendations to observe such patients for 4 to 24 hours after naloxone, earlier discharge is becoming more common. This prospective, observational study of patients with presumed opioid overdose examines the safety of early disposition decisions and the accuracy of outcome prediction by physicians 1 hour after the administration of naloxone.
Methods: The study was carried out at St. Paul's Hospital, an inner city teaching centre that cares for most of the injection drug users in Vancouver, BC. Patients were formally assessed 1 hour after receiving naloxone for presumed opioid overdose. Demographics, medical history and physical examination were documented on specific data forms, and physicians recorded their comfort with early discharge. Patients were followed up, and those who required a critical intervention or suffered a pre-defined adverse event (AE) within 24 hours of their 1-hour assessment were identified.
Results: Of 573 patients, 48% were discharged in less than 2 hours, 23% in 2 4 hours and 29% in >4 hours. 94 patients who were held in the emergency department (ED) or admitted required a critical intervention, including supplemental oxygen for hypoxia (74), repeat naloxone (52), antibiotics administered intravenously (IV) (14), assisted ventilations (13), fluid bolus for hypotension (12), charcoal for associated life-threatening overdose (6), IV inotropic agents (2), antiarrhythmics for sustained tachycardia >130 beats/min (1), and administration of bicarbonate for arterial [HCO3] <5 or venous CO2 <5 (1). Physicians predicted adverse events with 94% sensitivity and 59% specificity. No discharged patients suffered a serious AE within 24 hours of ED discharge.
Conclusions: Emergency physicians can clinically identify patients at risk of deterioration after naloxone reversal of suspected opioid overdose. Prolonged observation or hospital admission is not usually required. Selective early discharge of patients with presumed opioid overdose is feasible and appears safe. A clinical prediction rule may be useful in identifying patients eligible for early discharge.
