Key result
Implementation of the AHCPR guideline did not improve triage decisions, though physician risk ratings showed superior discrimination for confirmed ACS compared to the guideline.
Why the study?
Does implementing the AHCPR Unstable Angina Practice Guideline improve emergency physician's decision making in adults presenting to the emergency department with possible acute coronary syndrome?
Observational (n=1,140)
Yes
Does implementing the AHCPR Unstable Angina Practice Guideline improve emergency physician's decision making in adults presenting to the emergency department with possible acute coronary syndrome?
Implementation of the AHCPR unstable angina guideline did not improve ED triage decisions, and physician clinical judgment demonstrated superior discrimination for confirmed ACS compared to strict guideline adherence.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Guideline implementation did not improve ED triage; leaves open whether physician judgment should supersede strict AHCPR adherence for ACS risk stratification.
OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study is to determine whether implementing the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) Unstable Angina Practice Guideline improves emergency physician's decision making in patients with symptoms of possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS), including those for whom the diagnosis of unstable angina is uncertain. METHODS: The authors conducted a prospective guideline implementation trial with pre-post design in the emergency departments of 1 university hospital and 1 university-affiliated community teaching hospital from January 2000 to May 2001. They enrolled 1140 adults who presented with chest pain or other symptoms of possible ACS. The intervention included the following: 1) physician training in use of the AHCPR risk groups, 2) algorithm for risk stratification, and 3) group feedback. To determine how accurately physicians interpreted the guideline algorithm, the authors compared their risk ratings with actual guideline risk groups. RESULTS: No significant difference in physician triage decisions was observed between baseline and intervention periods. Analysis of physician's risk ratings during the intervention period revealed low overall concordance with actual guideline risk groups (kappa = 0.31); however, physician's risk ratings showed superior discrimination in identifying patients with confirmed ACS (receiver operating characteristic [ROC] area .81 v. .74, P = 0.008). Strict adherence to guideline recommendations would have resulted in hospitalizing 9% more non-ACS patients without lowering the rate of missed ACS. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the AHCPR guideline did not improve triage decisions in emergency department patients with possible ACS. Assessing physician triage solely based on concordance with the AHCPR guideline may not accurately reflect the quality of patient care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Katz et al. (2006) conducted an observational in Possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (n=1,140). AHCPR Unstable Angina Practice Guideline implementation vs. Baseline period (pre-implementation) was evaluated on Physician triage decisions. Implementation of the AHCPR guideline did not improve triage decisions, though physician risk ratings showed superior discrimination for confirmed ACS compared to the guideline.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: