Key result
Rapid discharge via single undetectable hs-cTn reassures low-risk patients, but emergency clinicians express reservations.
Why the study?
Adherence to and acceptability of rapid discharge strategies using high-sensitivity troponin assays for low-risk chest pain had largely been explored only quantitatively.
Is a rapid discharge strategy based on a single undetectable high-sensitivity troponin test and ECG (LoDED) acceptable to patients with low-risk chest pain and emergency department health professionals?
Is a rapid discharge strategy based on a single undetectable high-sensitivity troponin test and ECG (LoDED) acceptable to patients with low-risk chest pain and emergency department health professionals?
While rapid ED discharge using a single undetectable high-sensitivity troponin test and ECG is reassuring and acceptable to low-risk chest pain patients, addressing clinician reservations regarding risk stratification and observation time, alongside providing clear written discharge information, is necessary for successful clinical implementation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Clinician reservations warrant caution before LoDED adoption; leaves open implementation barriers for prospective evaluation.
BACKGROUND: Rapid discharge strategies for patients with low-risk chest pain using high-sensitivity troponin assays have been extensively evaluated. The adherence to, and acceptability of such strategies, has largely been explored using quantitative data. The aims of this integrated qualitative study were to explore the acceptability of the limit of detection and ECG discharge strategy (LoDED) to patients and health professionals, and to refine a discharge information leaflet for patients with low-risk chest pain. METHODS: Patients with low-risk chest pain who consented to a semi-structured interview were purposively sampled for maximum variation from four of the participating National Health Service sites between October 2018 and May 2019. Two focus groups with ED health professionals at two of the participating sites were completed in April and June 2019. RESULTS: A discharge strategy based on a single undetectable hs-cTn test (LoDED) was acceptable to patients. They trusted the health professionals who were treating them and felt reassured by other tests, (ECG) alongside blood test(s), even when the clinical assessment did not provide a firm diagnosis. In contrast, health professionals had reservations about the LoDED strategy, including concern about identifying low-risk patients and a shortened patient observation period. Findings from 11 patient interviews and 2 staff focus groups (with 20 clinicians) centred around three overarching themes: acceptability of the LoDED strategy, perceptions of symptom severity and uncertainty, and patient discharge information. CONCLUSION: Rapid discharge for low-risk chest pain is acceptable to patients, but clinicians reported some reticence in implementing the LoDED strategy. Further work is required to optimise discharge discussions and information provision for patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Beasant et al. (2020) studied Low-risk chest pain in the emergency department (n=31). Limit of detection and ECG discharge (LoDED) strategy (single undetectable hs-cTn test on arrival with a non-ischaemic ECG) and bespoke patient discharge information leaflet vs. Usual care (serial hs-cTn testing over 2-3 hours) was evaluated on Acceptability of the LoDED strategy to patients and health professionals, and refinement of a patient discharge information leaflet. The LoDED rapid discharge strategy using a single undetectable hs-cTn test was acceptable to 11 interviewed low-risk chest pain patients, though 20 emergency clinicians expressed reservations.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: