Key result
A single screening station protocol significantly reduced the time to complete cardiac screening compared to a three-station protocol (3.96 vs 10.51 minutes; P<0.001).
Why the study?
The study evaluated the feasibility of simultaneously conducting history and physical examination, limb-lead ECG, and preparticipation echocardiography by frontline providers at a single screening station.
Does a single-station screening protocol with limb-lead ECG reduce screening time compared to a multi-station protocol with 12-lead ECG in college athletes undergoing preparticipation physical examination?
Cross-Sectional (n=89)
No
Does a single-station screening protocol with limb-lead ECG reduce screening time compared to a multi-station protocol with 12-lead ECG in college athletes undergoing preparticipation physical examination?
Absolute Event Rate: 3.96% vs 10.51%
p-value: p=<0.001
A comprehensive preparticipation physical examination can be completed more efficiently using a single screening station and limb-lead ECG without compromising the ability to gather essential cardiac information.
Single-station protocol may shorten athlete screening time; leaves open effects on detection rates.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of simultaneously conducting history and physical (H&P), limb-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), and preparticipation echocardiography by frontline providers (PEFP) at one screening station. METHODS: This cross-sectional study compares limb-lead versus 12-lead ECG as part of a preparticipation physical examination (PPE) including H&P and PEFP conducted in year 1 and year 2 on 2 cohorts (n = 36, n = 53, respectively) of college athletes at one institution. Year 1 screening was conducted at 3 stations, one station per screening component. Time to complete each station was recorded, and total time for screening was the summation of times for each station. Year 2 screening was conducted at one station; timing began when the patient entered the room and ended when all 3 components of screening were complete. An unpaired t test was used to compare the mean time difference between years 1 and 2 screening stations. RESULTS: Year 1 screening time was significantly longer than time to complete cardiac screening using the year 2 protocol (10.51 ± 1.98 vs 3.96 ± 1.43 minutes, respectively; P < 0.001). Five athletes in year 1 and 3 athletes in year 2 were referred to cardiology for further evaluation; all athletes were ultimately cleared to participate. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive PPE can be completed in a timely fashion using a single screening station and limb-lead ECG to improve efficiency, while still allowing providers to gather information on history, physical examination, heart rhythm, and heart structure. This strategy may serve as a potential solution in the longstanding debate over best practices for PPEs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dennison et al. (2019) conducted a cross-sectional in Preparticipation physical examination (n=89). Single screening station protocol vs. Three screening stations protocol was evaluated on Time to complete cardiac screening (p=<0.001). A single screening station protocol significantly reduced the time to complete cardiac screening compared to a three-station protocol (3.96 vs 10.51 minutes; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: