BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Chest pain units (CPUs) were established primarily in the United States with the aim of reducing hospital admissions and costs, whilst improving quality of life and patient care. Clinical trials have shown that these units are safe and practical; however, there was a need to investigate to what extent patients are satisfied with the care in CPUs. The aim of this study is to evaluate the experiences of patients receiving CPU care and routine emergency department (ED) treatment for acute chest pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients presenting with acute chest pain at the ED between May 2004 and June 2005 and at the CPU between July 2005 and May 2006 were evaluated in this retrospective analysis. Standardized data collection using all available clinical data as well as telephone follow-up was carried out. Evaluation was carried out on a school-mark basis and a quality assessment was performed. RESULTS: Of the total population, 479 patients (323 male, 156 female) were treated in the ED, whereas 1176 (743 male, 433 female) in the CPU. In the ED, 26 patients (5.4%) were diagnosed as ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 39 (8.1%) as non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and 16 (3.3%) as unstable angina pectoris (UAP). In 398 patients (83.1%) acute coronary syndrome (ACS) could be ruled out. In the CPU, the incidence of STEMI was 74 (6.3%), of NSTEMI 141 (12%) and of UAP 153 (13%). ACS was excluded in 808 patients (68.7%). Data on satisfaction with in-hospital treatment was available in 78.5% of cases. In the CPU, 92.2% of the patients judged their treatment as excellent/good, 5.9% as appropriate and 1.9% as poor. The distribution of satisfaction in the ED was significantly lower with 78.6% excellent/good, 18.5% appropriate and 2.9% poor. CONCLUSION: The establishment of a CPU at the University Medical Center of Mainz demonstrated a higher level of patient satisfaction compared to the treatment of patients with acute chest pain in the general ED.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Chest pain units (CPUs) were established primarily in the United States with the aim of reducing hospital admissions and costs, whilst improving quality of life and patient care. Clinical trials have shown that these units are safe and practical; however, there was a need to investigate to what extent patients are satisfied with the care in CPUs. The aim of this study is to evaluate the experiences of patients receiving CPU care and routine emergency department (ED) treatment for acute chest pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients presenting with acute chest pain at the ED between May 2004 and June 2005 and at the CPU between July 2005 and May 2006 were evaluated in this retrospective analysis. Standardized data collection using all available clinical data as well as telephone follow-up was carried out. Evaluation was carried out on a school-mark basis and a quality assessment was performed. RESULTS: Of the total population, 479 patients (323 male, 156 female) were treated in the ED, whereas 1176 (743 male, 433 female) in the CPU. In the ED, 26 patients (5.4%) were diagnosed as ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 39 (8.1%) as non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and 16 (3.3%) as unstable angina pectoris (UAP). In 398 patients (83.1%) acute coronary syndrome (ACS) could be ruled out. In the CPU, the incidence of STEMI was 74 (6.3%), of NSTEMI 141 (12%) and of UAP 153 (13%). ACS was excluded in 808 patients (68.7%). Data on satisfaction with in-hospital treatment was available in 78.5% of cases. In the CPU, 92.2% of the patients judged their treatment as excellent/good, 5.9% as appropriate and 1.9% as poor. The distribution of satisfaction in the ED was significantly lower with 78.6% excellent/good, 18.5% appropriate and 2.9% poor. CONCLUSION: The establishment of a CPU at the University Medical Center of Mainz demonstrated a higher level of patient satisfaction compared to the treatment of patients with acute chest pain in the general ED.
Authors: M E Farkouh; P A Smars; G S Reeder; A R Zinsmeister; R W Evans; T D Meloy; S L Kopecky; M Allen; T G Allison; R J Gibbons; S E Gabriel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-12-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James W Hoekstra; Charles V Pollack; Matthew T Roe; Eric D Peterson; Ralph Brindis; Robert A Harrington; Robert H Christenson; Sidney C Smith; E Magnus Ohman; W Brian Gibler Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: J H Pope; T P Aufderheide; R Ruthazer; R H Woolard; J A Feldman; J R Beshansky; J L Griffith; H P Selker Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-04-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Till Keller; Tanja Zeller; Dirk Peetz; Stergios Tzikas; Alexander Roth; Ewa Czyz; Christoph Bickel; Stephan Baldus; Ascan Warnholtz; Meike Fröhlich; Christoph R Sinning; Medea S Eleftheriadis; Philipp S Wild; Renate B Schnabel; Edith Lubos; Nicole Jachmann; Sabine Genth-Zotz; Felix Post; Viviane Nicaud; Laurence Tiret; Karl J Lackner; Thomas F Münzel; Stefan Blankenberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-08-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Till Keller; Felix Post; Stergios Tzikas; Astrid Schneider; Sven Arnolds; Oliver Scheiba; Stefan Blankenberg; Thomas Münzel; Sabine Genth-Zotz Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2009-12-24 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Jonas Björk; Jakob L Forberg; Mattias Ohlsson; Lars Edenbrandt; Hans Ohlin; Ulf Ekelund Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2006-07-06 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Felix Post; Evangelos Giannitsis; Thomas Riemer; Lars S Maier; Claus Schmitt; Burghard Schumacher; Gerd Heusch; Harald Mudra; Thomas Voigtländer; Rainer Erbel; Harald Darius; Hugo Katus; Christian Hamm; Jochen Senges; Tommaso Gori; Thomas Münzel Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2012-07-25 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: T Keller; S Tzikas; O Scheiba; U Krahn; F Post; S Arnolds; S Blankenberg; A Warnholtz; T Münzel; S Genth-Zotz Journal: Herz Date: 2011-11-05 Impact factor: 1.443
Authors: Alexander Illmann; Thomas Riemer; Raimund Erbel; Evangelos Giannitsis; Christian Hamm; Michael Haude; Gerd Heusch; Lars S Maier; Thomas Münzel; Claus Schmitt; Burghard Schumacher; Jochen Senges; Thomas Voigtländer; Harald Mudra Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Bernd Nowak; Evangelos Giannitsis; Thomas Riemer; Thomas Münzel; Michael Haude; Lars S Maier; Claus Schmitt; Burghard Schumacher; Harald Mudra; Christian Hamm; Jochen Senges; Thomas Voigtländer Journal: Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care Date: 2012-12
Authors: Felix Post; Tommaso Gori; Evangelos Giannitsis; Harald Darius; Stephan Baldus; Christian Hamm; Rainer Hambrecht; Hans Martin Hofmeister; Hugo Katus; Stefan Perings; Jochen Senges; Thomas Münzel Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2015-07-07 Impact factor: 5.460