I’ve spent nine years working in an emergency department, which means I’ve also spent nine years performing electrocardiograms at triage. With a couple thousand waiting-room ECGs under my belt, I’ve noticed a few things:
- A lot of ECGs are ordered at triage.
- Many of them are performed on low-risk patients.
- Very few of those ECGs lead to a change in initial management.
Oh, and one more thing:
- Most physicians hate signing triage ECGs.
I can’t say I blame them. Triage ECGs interrupt their workflow and, worse than just slowing them down, that distraction can lead to errors. As an additional frustration, these patients often end up being seen by a different doctor in the department, and no one likes making diagnostic or treatment decisions that another provider will have to deal with. Plus, if the signing physician does happen to find something wrong, there’s always a nagging concern that the patient will end up being added to their already full group and need to be seen immediately—further interrupting flow.
Triage ECGs bring work and distraction.
So it’s understandable why many emergency physicians are rejoicing at the publication of a new study by Hughes, Lewis, Katz, and Jones: “Safety of Computer Interpretation of Normal Triage Electrocardiograms” .
To see a bunch of ECGs from my collection that show acute MIs but were read as normal by the computer, follow this link or click on the tracing above.