Evaluation of Provider Assessment of Clinical History When Using the HEART Score
Ravindra Gopaul1, Robert A Waller1, Ricci Kalayanamitra2
1Department of Emergency Medicine, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA.
Objective:
The HEART Score is a clinically validated risk stratification tool for patients with chest pain. Using five parameters (History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, and Troponin), this instrument categorizes patients as low, moderate, or high risk for major adverse cardiac events within six weeks after evaluation. Of these parameters, History is the most subjective, as providers independently assign their level of clinical suspicion. Overestimation of history, and ultimately the HEART Score, can result in increased resource utilization, expense, and patient risk. We sought to evaluate bias in provider assessment of history when determining the HEART Score.
Methods:
Emergency medicine (EM) and Cardiology providers received surveys with one of two versions of clinical vignettes randomized at the question level and were asked to estimate the history component of the HEART Score. Vignettes differed by age, risk factors, sex, and socioeconomic status (SES), but both versions should have received the same score for history. Statistical analysis was then used to assess differences in history assessment between vignettes.
Results:
Of the 884 responses analyzed, most providers overestimated the historical portion of the HEART Score when assessing risk factors, patient distress, age, and lower SES. Many underestimated history with knowledge of a previous negative stress test. When controlling for specialty, the universal theme was overestimation by EM providers and underestimation by cardiologists. Despite the presence of hypertension, gender differences, and the appearance of mild distress, cardiologists were more likely to correctly estimate history compared to EM providers. SES consideration generally led to an underestimation of history by cardiologists. These findings were all statistically significant.
Conclusion:
Our study demonstrates that both EM and cardiology providers overestimate history when considering prognosticators that are frequently viewed as concerning. Further education on proper usage of the HEART Score is needed for more appropriate scoring of history and improved resource allocation for hospital systems.
More Related Videos
07:51Hydra, a Computer-Based Platform for Aiding Clinicians in Cardiovascular Analysis and Diagnosis
Published on: September 26, 2018
04:05Author Spotlight: Unveiling Prognostic Indicators in Heart Failure - The Role of Phase Angle and Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis
Published on: June 30, 2023
Related Concept Videos
Assessment of the Cardiovascular System I: Subjective Data
Initial Enquiry
Ask the patient about their primary concern and thoroughly explore all reported symptoms.
Medical History
Investigate past illnesses affecting the cardiovascular system, such as angina, anemia, rheumatic fever, congenital heart disease, stroke, thrombophlebitis, dysrhythmias, varicosities
Inquire about symptoms...
Assessment of apical pulse
Assessing the apical pulse is a critical nursing procedure, particularly indicated for:
Assessment of the Cardiovascular System IV: Auscultation
Normal Heart Sounds
S1 (First Heart Sound)-
S1 is made by the closure of the mitral and tricuspid valves (atrioventricular valves), marking the beginning of systole.
S2 (Second Heart Sound)-
S2 is made by the closure of the aortic and pulmonic valves (semilunar valves), marking the end of the systole.
Dysrhythmias V: Evaluating Dysrhythmias
Heart Failure IV: Classification and Diagnostic Evaluation
Assessment of apical radial pulse
The A-R pulse assessment involves simultaneous evaluation of the apical and radial pulses. When the apical and radial pulse rates vary, this assessment helps identify a pulse deficit.
Pre-Procedural Preparation
