Care Redesign

Improving Emergency Department Care for Low-Risk Chest Pain

Case Study · April 18, 2018

A large health care organization aimed to improve its emergency department (ED) standard of practice for patients with possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS) by adopting an evidence-based clinical decision tool, the HEART score, and tracking patient outcomes and the use of hospitalization and noninvasive stress testing for low-risk patients across 14 sites. Results showed opportunities to reduce low-value care and costs.

Key Takeaways

  1. Adopting an evidence-based clinical decision aid like the HEART score to risk-stratify patients may improve the quality and efficiency of ED care for low-risk patients with possible acute coronary syndrome.

  2. Patients who have low-risk HEART scores are at extremely low risk for 30-day adverse events, and below previously reported acceptable “miss rates.”

  3. A large opportunity exists to avoid unwarranted hospital admissions and noninvasive cardiac testing, which have not been shown to improve outcomes for low-risk chest pain patients.

  4. Early engagement of thought leaders and frontline physicians through multiple modes of communication is vital to the success of a large-scale intervention like this.

The Challenge

Heart disease is the country’s leading cause of death and a key priority for health professionals and health systems. Chest pain and related symptoms are the number two reason patients visit U.S. emergency departments, accounting for nearly 7 million visits in 2014.

The current ED standard of practice for managing patients with possible acute coronary syndrome involves routine hospitalization/observation and noninvasive cardiac testing. However, this approach is inefficient, does not contribute to improved patient outcomes, and is costly; numerous reports question its benefits. Physicians frequently underestimate the risks of bringing patients into the hospital and of false positives associated with noninvasive cardiac tests. And with missed diagnosis of heart attacks a top cause of malpractice lawsuits against emergency physicians, erring on the side of testing and admissions for suspected ACS is common.

ED management of patients with possible ACS is driven by patient history, exam, and diagnostic tests available in the ED. Our integrated health system, Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC), previously had no system-wide guidelines to standardize the risk-stratification of patients with possible ACS.

The Goal

To improve the quality and efficiency of ED care for low-risk patients at 14 KPSC hospitals by adopting and implementing system-wide recommendations informed by updated American Heart Association guidelines and recent trials indicating the potential benefits of treatment algorithms designed to expedite the discharge of low-risk chest pain patients.

The Execution

We drew on lessons learned from similar large-scale efforts to avoid unwarranted care, such as antibiotic or medical imaging programs,­ to improve care for patients with chest pain.

  • Tool selection: We chose the HEART score as a standard algorithm to assist ED providers in the evaluation and management of patients with possible ACS. HEART, developed in The Netherlands, stands for History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin.
  • Leadership buy-in: We secured clinical leadership support (e.g., chiefs of cardiology, ED, and hospitalist services), and KPSC adopted an Acute Chest Pain Reference in January 2016. For patients with a HEART score of zero to 3 and negative troponin, we recommend discharge with a primary care follow-up.
Acute Chest Pain HEART Score Reference (MI)

  Click To Enlarge.

  • Physician education (the initiative targeted MD behavior only):
    • At a regional hospitalist and emergency medicine summit, we discussed medical evidence behind the KPSC recommendations and our expectations for physicians.
    • We developed and distributed an online CME module for physicians similar to information presented at the summit. All emergency physicians last year received a small financial incentive for participating in the performance-improvement effort.
  • HEART documentation: To optimize physician decision support and to stratify patients based on ACS risk, physicians were asked to document the history and ECG findings discretely in the medical record, to be combined with age, risk factors, and troponin level to calculate a HEART score for appropriate patients. Physicians who ordered a troponin test but did not document in a way to calculate a HEART score were prompted to do so in the medical record.
  • Performance reporting: We created health system dashboard reports to measure facility performance related to HEART score reporting and admissions/observations or cardiac stress testing for low-risk patients. These reports showed the degree to which facilities were “discordant” with our recommendations.
Dashboard for Performance Reporting - HEART Score Risk

  Click To Enlarge.

  • Outcomes: We examined the outcomes (30-day death or myocardial infarction) of 12,128 adult ED encounters at any of the 14 community EDs affiliated with KPSC in which a troponin test was ordered and a HEART score documented in 2016.
Patient Outcomes Stratified by Low, Moderate, and High-Risk HEART Score

  Click To Enlarge.

The Team 

Research scientists, clinical leadership across disciplines, physicians across disciplines and sites, an electronic health record IT specialist, and a data analyst.

Metrics/Findings

  • The overall 30-day “miss rate” using the HEART score was 22 out of 12,128, or 0.18%. This is well below published estimated miss rates of 2.1% in the United States.
  • Among 6,876 low-risk patients, the rate of 30-day myocardial infarction or all-cause death was 0.09%. (The 30-day MI/death rate was 0.26% for moderate-risk patients and 0.68% for high-risk patients.)
  • Across 14 sites, 12% of patients with a documented low-risk HEART score were admitted/observed or received noninvasive cardiac testing.
  • There was significant variation in the management of low-risk patients with possible ACS among the 14 medical centers, ranging from 3% to 22% of patients receiving stress testing or hospital admission/observation.

Where to Start

Identify a standard approach to ED chest pain management using a proven risk-stratification tool like the HEART score. Evaluate and report patient outcomes and target opportunities to eliminate low-value hospitalization and cardiac testing in low-risk populations.

Challenges

As with any intervention within a large health system, getting everyone to agree on a standard practice is hard to do, and implementation is equally challenging. We also acknowledge that there are always limitations to decision rules, and physicians should maintain the autonomy to deviate from recommendations when it is in the best interest of their individual patients.

Next Steps

Kaiser Permanente has plans to adopt the HEART score or similar risk-stratifying tools in other regions.

New call for submissions ­to NEJM Catalyst

Now inviting longform articles

Connect

A weekly email newsletter featuring the latest actionable ideas and practical innovations from NEJM Catalyst.

Learn More »

More From Care Redesign
Impact of PCSP on Patient Satisfaction at Providence Heart Clinic

Transforming Specialty Practice in Pursuit of Value-Based Care: Results from an Integrated Cardiology Practice

Despite significant primary care reform around patient-centered medical home models, specialty care remains fragmented, with poor communication between primary care and specialists. How should specialty practices be reformed to deliver more coordinated, patient-centered care?

Michael Bennick Yale New Haven Hospital Medical Director of the Patient Experience - Yale Living History Project

The Living History Project: Open-Ended Patient Interviews Create a Therapeutic Bridge

A program at Yale has students conduct open-ended interviews with patients about their lives, their hopes, their values, and what they most want their medical team to know — creating the opportunity for human connection and a better care experience.

Fisher02_pullquote hypertension guidelines

Hypertension Guidelines: Achieving 90% Success

Focused and innovative health systems are managing to control blood pressure for 9 in 10 patients, which is well above the national average of 50% to 60%.

Health Care Organizations Are Moderately Effective in Using Data

Survey Snapshot: Using Data for Change

NEJM Catalyst Insights Council members discuss how data and analytics are being used at their organizations, both now and with the future in mind.

Percentage of U.S. Adult Hemodialysis Patients Achieving Dialysis Adequacy, 2013-2016. Data will be released in early 2019.

Innovation in Dialysis: Continuous Improvement and Implementation

The U.S. dialysis sector has been criticized for its lack of innovation, but this criticism disregards the kidney community’s success in creating — and continuously improving on — dialysis as a safe, globally scaled, quality-oriented outpatient therapy.

Cleveland Clinic Time-to-Treatment Cancer Programming Overall Scorecard 2015-2017 Sample

Reducing Time-to-Treatment for Newly Diagnosed Cancer Patients

How Cleveland Clinic initiated a multidisciplinary program to reduce time-to-treatment and accomplish a 33% reduction.

Treatment Authorization Increases and Rapid Boost in New Mexico Medicaid Members Treated for Chronic HCV

A Collaborative Model to Expand Medicaid Treatment Coverage for Chronic Hepatitis C Virus

How managing the benefit coverage expansion for the treatment of HCV in New Mexico was successfully achieved after less than 2 years.

Data Analytics Improves Clinical Care

Care Redesign Survey: How Data and Analytics Improve Clinical Care

Data and analytics are a key means for clinicians, clinical leaders, and executives to transform health care delivery. Yet health care organizations have work to do in getting measures right and much to learn about effective use of data, according to our most recent Insights Council survey.

Nobody Wants a Waiting Room sketch

Nobody Wants a Waiting Room

A study in system change.

Orszag02_pullquote - In Defense of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program HRRP

In Defense of the Federal Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program

In the current debate about HRRP, the evidence tilts toward no effect or a beneficial one on mortality, says the former Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.

Connect

A weekly email newsletter featuring the latest actionable ideas and practical innovations from NEJM Catalyst.

Learn More »

Topics

Hypertension Guidelines: Achieving 90% Success

Focused and innovative health systems are managing to control blood pressure for 9 in 10…

Primary Care

182 Articles

“Breaking Bread” to Combat Burnout

Can a simple dinner create community among health care providers?

Sustainable Financing for Complex Care Management…

Care management should be payer-agnostic at its core.

Insights Council

Have a voice. Join other health care leaders effecting change, shaping tomorrow.

Apply Now