ObjectivesThis study describes the proportion of emergency department (ED) returns within 7 days due to adverse events, defined as adverse outcomes related to healthcare received.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingWe used an electronically triggered adverse event surveillance system at a tertiary care ED from May to June 2010 to examine ED returns within 7 days of index visit.ParticipantsOne of three trained nurses determined whether the visit was related to index emergency care. For such records, one of three trained emergency physicians conducted adverse event determinations.Main outcome measureWe determined adverse event type and severity and analysed the data with descriptive statistics, χ2 tests and logistic regression.ResultsOf 13 495 index ED visits, 923 (6.8%) were followed by ED returns within 7 days. The median age of all patients was 47 years and 52.8% were women. After nursing review, 211 cases required physician review. Of these, 53 visits were adverse events (positive predictive value (PPV)=5.7%, 95% CI 4.4% to 7.4%) and 30 (56.6%) were preventable. Common adverse event types involved management, diagnostic or medication issues. We observed one potentially preventable death and 58.5% of adverse events resulting in transient disability. The PPV of a modified trigger with a cut-off of return within 72 h, resulting in admission was 11.9% (95% CI 6.8% to 18.9%).ConclusionsOur electronic trigger efficiently identified adverse events among 12% of patients with ED returns within 72 h, requiring hospital admission. Given the high degree of preventability of the identified adverse events, this trigger also holds promise as a performance measurement tool.

Aims To identify variables predicting ejection fraction (EF) recovery and characterize prognosis of heart failure (HF) patients with EF recovery (HFrecEF). Methods and results Retrospective study of adults referred for ≥2 echocardiograms separated by ≥6 months between 2008 and 2016 at the two largest echocardiography centres in Alberta who also had physician-assigned diagnosis of HF. Of 10 641 patients, 3124 had heart failure reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (EF ≤ 40%) at baseline: while mean EF declined from 30.2% on initial echocardiogram to 28.6% on the second echocardiogram in those patients with persistent HFrEF (defined by <10% improvement in EF), it improved from 26.1% to 46.4% in the 1174 patients (37.6%) with HFrecEF (defined by EF absolute improvement ≥10%). On multivariate analysis, female sex [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40–1.96], younger age (aOR per decade 1.16, 95% CI 1.09–1.23), atrial fibrillation (aOR 2.00, 95% CI 1.68–2.38), cancer (aOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.03–2.26), hypertension (aOR 1.38, 95% CI 1.18–1.62), lower baseline ejection fraction (aOR per 1% decrease 1.07 (1.06–1.08), and using hydralazine (aOR 1.69, 95% CI 1.19–2.40) were associated with EF improvements ≥10%. HFrecEF patients demonstrated lower rates per 1000 patient years of mortality (106 vs. 164, adjusted hazard ratio, aHR 0.70 [0.62–0.79]), all-cause hospitalizations (300 vs. 428, aHR 0.87 [0.79–0.95]), all-cause emergency room (ER) visits (569 vs. 799, aHR 0.88 [0.81–0.95]), and cardiac transplantation or left ventricular assist device implantation (2 vs. 10, aHR 0.21 [0.10–0.45]) compared to patients with persistent HFrEF. Females with HFrEF exhibited lower mortality risk (aHR 0.94 [0.88–0.99]) than males after adjusting for age, time between echocardiograms, clinical comorbidities, medications, and whether their EF improved or not during follow-up. Conclusion HFrecEF patients tended to be younger, female, and were more likely to have hypertension, atrial fibrillation, or cancer. HFrecEF patients have a substantially better prognosis compared to those with persistent HFrEF, even after multivariable adjustment, and female patients exhibit lower mortality risk than men within each subgroup (HFrecEF and persistent HFrEF) even after multivariable adjustment.

Research CMAJBackground: Early physician follow-up after discharge is associated with lower rates of death and readmission among patients with heart failure. We explored whether physician continuity further influences outcomes after discharge. Methods:We used data from linked administrative databases for all adults aged 20 years or more in the province of Alberta who were discharged alive from hospital between January 1999 and June 2009 with a first-time diagnosis of heart failure. We used Cox proportional hazard models with time-dependent covariates to analyze the effect of follow-up with a familiar physician within the first month after discharge on the primary outcome of death or urgent all-cause readmission over 6 months. A familiar physician was defined as one who had seen the patient at least twice in the year before the index admission or once during the index admission. Results:In the first month after discharge, 5336 (21.9%) of the 24 373 identified patients had no follow-up visits, 16 855 (69.2%) saw a familiar physician, and 2182 (9.0%) saw unfamiliar physician(s) exclusively. The risk of death or unplanned readmission during the 6-month observation period was lower among patients who saw a familiar physician (43.6%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-0.91) or an unfamiliar physician (43.6%; adjusted HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.97) for early follow-up visits, as compared with patients who had no follow-up visits (62.9%). Taking into account all follow-up visits over the 6-month period, we found that the risk of death or urgent readmission was lower among patients who had all of their visits with a familiar physician than among those followed by unfamiliar physicians (adjusted HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.98).Interpretation: Early physician follow-up after discharge and physician continuity were both associated with better outcomes among patients with heart failure. Research is needed to explore whether physician continuity is important for other conditions and in settings other than recent hospital discharge. Methods Data sourcesWe used deidentified linked data from 4 Alberta Health administrative databases that capture all hospital admissions, emergency department visits and physician visits for the more than 3.7 million people in the province of Alberta. The Discharge Abstract Database records the admission date, the discharge date, the most responsible diagnosis (specified by the hospital attending physician), up to 25 other diagnoses and the acuity (classified as elective or urgent/emergent) of all acute-care admissions to hospitals in the province. The Ambulatory Care Database records all patient visits to emergency departments, with coding for up to 10 conditions. The Health Practitioner Claims Database tracks all physician claims for services and includes up to 3 diagnoses per encounter. The Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan Registry tracks the vital status of Albertan residents and includes the date of death or emigration from the province. Study cohortWe identified adul...