Why the study?
The study sought to improve immediate and subsequent care for emergency department patients presenting with acute atrial fibrillation and flutter by implementing best practices checklist principles.
Does the implementation of a best practices checklist improve the quality and safety of care for patients presenting to the emergency department with acute atrial fibrillation and flutter?
Cohort (n=1,108)
No
Does the implementation of a best practices checklist improve the quality and safety of care for patients presenting to the emergency department with acute atrial fibrillation and flutter?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.7% vs 0.4%
Implementing a best practices checklist for acute AF/AFL in the emergency department significantly increased rates of cardioversion, restoration of sinus rhythm, and rapid cardiology follow-up.
May improve ED AF cardioversion and sinus rhythm discharge; hypothesis-generating pending randomized confirmation of safety.
BACKGROUND: We sought to improve the immediate and subsequent care of emergency department (ED) patients with acute atrial fibrillation (AF) and flutter (AFL) by implementing the principles of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians AF/AFL Best Practices Checklist. METHODS: This cohort study included 3 periods: before (7 months), intervention introduction (1 month), and after (7 months), and was conducted at a major academic centre. We included patients who presented with an episode of acute AF or AFL and used multiple strategies to support ED adoption of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians checklist. We developed new cardiology rapid-access follow-up processes. The main outcomes were unsafe and suboptimal treatments in the ED. RESULTS: We included 1108 patient visits, with 559 in the before and 549 in the after period. In a comparison of the periods, there was an increase in use of chemical cardioversion (20.6% vs 25.0%; absolute difference [AD], 4.4%) and in electrical cardioversion (39.2% vs 51.2%; AD, 12.0%). More patients were discharged with sinus rhythm restored (66.9% vs 75.0%; AD, 8.1%). The proportion seen in a follow-up cardiology clinic increased from 24.2% to 39.9% (AD, 15.7%) and the mean time until seen decreased substantially (103.3 vs 49.0 days; AD, -54.3 days). There were very few unsafe cases (0.4% vs 0.7%) and, although there was an increase in suboptimal care (19.5% vs 23.1%), overall patient outcomes were excellent. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully improved the care for ED patients with acute AF/AFL and achieved more frequent and more rapid cardiology follow-up. Although cases of unsafe management were uncommon and patient outcomes were excellent, there are opportunities for physicians to improve their care of acute AF/AFL patients. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT05468281.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stiell et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Acute atrial fibrillation and flutter (n=1,108). Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians AF/AFL Best Practices Checklist vs. Before period (usual care) was evaluated on Unsafe cases.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: