Browsing by Author "Patel, Roma"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Anxiety Associated With Increased Risk for Emergency Department Recidivism in Patients With Low-Risk Chest Pain
    (Elsevier, 2018) Musey, Paul I., Jr.; Patel, Roma; Fry, Colin; Jimenez, Guadalupe; Koene, Rachael; Kline, Jeffrey A.; Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine
    Anxiety contributes to the chest pain symptom complex in 30% to 40% of patients with low-risk chest pain seen in the emergency department (ED). The validated Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale-Anxiety subscale (HADS-A) has been used as an anxiety screening tool in this population. The objective was to determine the prevalence of abnormal HADS-A scores in a cohort of low-risk chest pain patients and test the association of HADS-A score with subsequent healthcare utilization and symptom recurrence. In a single-center, prospective, observational cohort study of adult ED subjects with low-risk chest pain, the HADS-A was used to stratify participants into 2 groups: low anxiety (score <8) and high anxiety (score ≥8). At 45-day follow-up, chest pain recurrence was assessed by patient report, whereas ED utilization was assessed through chart review. Of the 167 subjects enrolled, 78 (47%) were stratified to high anxiety. The relative risk for high anxiety being associated with at least one 30-day ED return visit was 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.4 to 4.7) and this relative risk increased to 9.1 (95% confidence interval 2.18 to 38.6) for 2 or more ED return visits. Occasional chest pain recurrence was reported by more subjects in the high anxiety group, 68% vs 47% (p = 0.029). In conclusion, 47% of low-risk chest pain cohort had abnormal levels of anxiety. These patients were more likely to have occasional recurrence of their chest pain and had an increased risk multiple ED return visits.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Code Status Orders: Do the Options Matter?
    (Springer, 2023) Patel, Roma; Comer, Amber; Pelc, Gregory; Jawed, Areeba; Fettig, Lyle; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: Code status orders in hospitalized patients guide urgent medical decisions. Inconsistent terminology and treatment options contribute to varied interpretations. Objective: To compare two code status order options, traditional (three option) and modified to include additional care options (four option). Design: Prospective, randomized, cross-sectional survey conducted on February-March 2020. Participants were provided with six clinical scenarios and randomly assigned to the three or four option code status order. In three scenarios, participants determined the most appropriate code status. Three scenarios provided clinical details and code status and respondents were asked whether they would provide a particular intervention. This study was conducted at three urban, academic hospitals. Participants: Clinicians who routinely utilize code status orders. Of 4006 participants eligible, 549 (14%) were included. Main measures: The primary objective was consensus (most commonly selected answer) based on provided code status options. Secondary objectives included variables associated with participant responses, participant code status model preference, and participant confidence about whether their selections would match their peers. Key results: In the three scenarios participants selected the appropriate code status, there was no difference in consensus for the control scenario, and higher consensus in the three option group (p-values < 0.05) for the remaining two scenarios. In the scenarios to determine if a clinical intervention was appropriate, two of the scenarios had higher consensus in the three option group (p-values 0.018 and < 0.05) and one had higher consensus in the four option group (p-value 0.001). Participants in the three option model were more confident that their peers selected the same code status (p-value 0.0014); however, most participants (72%) preferred the four option model. Conclusions: Neither code status model led to consistent results. The three option model provided consistency more often; however, the majority of participants preferred the four option model.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Crucial Conversations for High-Risk Populations before Surgery: Advance Care Planning in a Preoperative Setting
    (Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., 2021-10-06) Patel, Roma; Torke, Alexia; Nation, Barb; Cottingham, Ann; Hur, Jennifer; Gruber, Rachel; Sinha, Shilpee; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: High-risk patients undergoing elective surgery are at risk for perioperative complications, including readmissions and death. Advance care planning (ACP) may allow for preparation for such events. Objectives: (1) To assess the completion rate of advance directives (ADs) and their association with one year readmissions and mortality (2) to examine clinical events for decedents. Design: This is an observational cohort study conducted through chart review. Setting/Subjects: Subjects were 400 patients undergoing preoperative evaluation for elective surgery at two hospitals in the United States. Measurements: The prevalence of ADs at the time of surgery and at one year, readmissions, and mortality at one year were determined. Results: Three-hundred ninety patients were included. In total, 102 (26.4%) patients were readmitted, yet did not complete an AD. Seventeen (4.4%) patients filed an AD during follow-up. Nineteen patients died and mortality rate was 4.9%. There was a significant association between completing an AD before death. Of the decedents, seven (37%) underwent resuscitation, but only four had ADs. Conclusions: Many high-risk surgical patients would benefit from ADs before clinical decline. Preoperative clinics present a missed opportunity to ensure ACP occurs before complications arise.