Background: The conventional chest pain protocol using thrombolysis in myocardial infarction score as the risk stratifying tool may not perform well in the emergency department in which a mix of low- and high-risk patients are encountered. Newer chest pain scores such as HEART pathway and Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Score–Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol (EDACS-ADP) are found to have high sensitivity with good specificity. Objectives: This study aims to validate and compare two chest pain scores: HEART pathway and EDACS-ADP in the Accident and Emergency Department of a local hospital in Hong Kong. Methods: A prospective cohort study was carried out at the Accident and Emergency Department of Kwong Wah Hospital in Hong Kong from 1 June 2016 to 31 May 2017. Patients ⩾18 years old with chest pain lasting 5 min or more who were observed with chest pain protocol on observation ward were recruited. Results: A total of 238 patients were recruited; 231 eligible patients completed follow-up. There were five patients with major adverse cardiac events in 30 days of follow-up. The sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive values of HEART pathway and EDACS-ADP were 100%, 74.3%, 100% and 100%, 73.5.0% and 100%, respectively. Both scores had almost the same performance in terms of major adverse cardiac events at 30 days (area under the curve = 0.87). Conclusion: Our study showed both EDACS-ADP (modified) and HEART pathway achieved high sensitivity (~100%) for detecting major adverse cardiac events in 30 days while being able to discharge more than 70% of patients as low risk for early discharge.

No abstract

Though multiple myeloma is not commonly encountered in emergency practice, earlier identification of relatively subtle symptoms can allow early treatment. Missing this diagnosis will delay treatment and produce severe outcome to the patient. We should be on the alert for such important condition.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate emergency medicine doctors' accuracy in predicting the need of film printing in a simulated setting of computed radiography and assess whether this can facilitate optimal patient care. METHODS: Cross sectional study was conducted from 20 March 2009 to 3 April 2009 in 1334 patients. After clinical assessment of those patients who needed X-ray examination, doctors in the emergency department would indicate whether film printing was necessary for subsequent patient care in a simulated computed radiography setting. The fi nal discharge plan was then retrieved from each patient record. Accuracy of doctors' prediction was calculated by comparing the initial request for radiographic film printing and the final need of film. Doctors with different level of emergency medicine experience would also be analyzed and compared. RESULTS: The sensitivity of predicting fi lm printing was 84.5% and the specifi city of predicting no fi lm printing was 91.2%. Positive predictive value was 88.4% while negative predictive value was 88.2%. The overall accuracy was 88.2%. The accuracy of doctors stratified into groups of fellows, higher trainees and basic trainees were 85.4%, 90.5% and 88.5% respectively (P=0.073). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that doctors can reliably predict whether film printing is needed after clinical assessment of patients, before actual image viewing. Advanced indication for film printing at the time of imaging request for selected patients can save time for all parties with minimal wastage.

No abstract