Evaluation of a calcium, magnesium and phosphate clinical ordering tool in the emergency department

We developed a clinical tool comprising patient risk factors for having an abnormal calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg) or phosphate (PO4) level. We hypothesized that patients without a risk factor do not require testing. This study examined the tool's potential utility for rationalizing Ca, Mg and PO...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The American journal of emergency medicine 2022-03, Vol.53, p.163-167
Hauptverfasser: Sri-Ganeshan, Muhuntha, Walker, Kimberly P., Lines, Travis J., Neal-Williams, Tom J.L., Sheffield, Elizabeth R., Yeoh, Michael J., Taylor, David McD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:We developed a clinical tool comprising patient risk factors for having an abnormal calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg) or phosphate (PO4) level. We hypothesized that patients without a risk factor do not require testing. This study examined the tool's potential utility for rationalizing Ca, Mg and PO4 ordering in the emergency department (ED). We undertook a retrospective observational study in a single metropolitan ED. Patients aged 18 years or more who presented between July and December 2019 were included if they had a Ca, Mg or PO4 test during their ED stay. Demographic and clinical data, including the presence of risk factors, were extracted from the medical record. The primary outcome was a clinically significant abnormal Ca, Mg or PO4 level (>0.2 mmol/l above or below the laboratory reference range). Calcium, Mg and PO4 levels were measured on 1426, 1296 and 1099 patients, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values and likelihood ratios of the tool identifying a patient with a Ca level > 0.2 mmol/l outside the range were 0.05, 0.99, 1.59 and 0.41, respectively. The values for Mg were 0.02, 1.00, 1.44 and 0.35 and those for PO4 were 0.15, 0.93, 1.38 and 0.57, respectively. The majority of patients not identified as having an abnormal level did not receive electrolyte correction treatment. Application of the tool would have resulted in a 35.8% cost reduction. The tool failed to predict a very small proportion of patients (approximately 1%) with an abnormal Ca or Mg level and for whom it would have been desirable to have these levels measured. It may help rationalize Ca and Mg ordering and reduce laboratory costs. •The usefulness of calcium, magnesium and phosphate testing in the emergency department setting has been questioned.•Using clinical factors associated with abnormal levels, we developed a clinical tool to rationalize their testing.•The tool has very high negative predictive values for calcium and magnesium testing.•The tool's performance is less robust for phosphate testing.•Application of the tool has the potential to decrease testing of these electrolytes and to reduce cost.
ISSN:0735-6757
1532-8171
DOI:10.1016/j.ajem.2022.01.003