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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The American journal of emergency medicine 2022-03, Vol.53, p.163-167 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 167 |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 163 |
container_title | The American journal of emergency medicine |
container_volume | 53 |
creator | Sri-Ganeshan, Muhuntha Walker, Kimberly P. Lines, Travis J. Neal-Williams, Tom J.L. Sheffield, Elizabeth R. Yeoh, Michael J. Taylor, David McD |
description | 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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.ajem.2022.01.003 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2622281554</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0735675722000043</els_id><sourcerecordid>2627454508</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c335t-e9e90d265e9f452647edde8fa18973a6da033c6aac29730d822f24b037158a193</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU9rFTEUxYMo7bP2C7iQgJsunDF_JpMMuJHSVqHgRtchTe68l2EmGZNMod_ePF514aKrey_8zuFyDkLvKWkpof3nqTUTLC0jjLWEtoTwV2hHBWeNopK-RjsiuWh6KeQ5epvzRAilnejO0DkXpOdKyR2yN49m3kzxMeA4YoOtma3flk94MfsAua7YBIfXQ8zrwRTAdvbBVwrH5CD5sMclxhn7gMsBMCyQ9hDsE3awmlQWCOUdejOaOcPl87xAv25vfl5_a-5_3H2__nrfWM5FaWCAgTjWCxjGTrC-k-AcqNFQNUhuemcI57Y3xrJ6E6cYG1n3QLikQhk68At0dfJdU_y9QS568dnCPJsAccua9YwxRYXoKvrxP3SKWwr1uyMla0qCqEqxE2VTzDnBqNfkF5OeNCX6WIGe9LECfaxAE6prBVX04dl6e1jA_ZP8zbwCX04A1CwePSSdra-RgfMJbNEu-pf8_wCHHZcG</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2627454508</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of a calcium, magnesium and phosphate clinical ordering tool in the emergency department</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Sri-Ganeshan, Muhuntha ; Walker, Kimberly P. ; Lines, Travis J. ; Neal-Williams, Tom J.L. ; Sheffield, Elizabeth R. ; Yeoh, Michael J. ; Taylor, David McD</creator><creatorcontrib>Sri-Ganeshan, Muhuntha ; Walker, Kimberly P. ; Lines, Travis J. ; Neal-Williams, Tom J.L. ; Sheffield, Elizabeth R. ; Yeoh, Michael J. ; Taylor, David McD</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0735-6757</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-8171</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2022.01.003</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35063887</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Calcium ; Calcium phosphates ; Choosing Wisely ; Cost control ; Electrolytes ; Emergency health service ; Emergency medical care ; Emergency medical services ; Emergency Service, Hospital ; Humans ; Laboratories ; Magnesium ; Medical records ; Observational studies ; Patients ; Phosphate ; Phosphates ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk factors ; Utility</subject><ispartof>The American journal of emergency medicine, 2022-03, Vol.53, p.163-167</ispartof><rights>2022</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Limited Mar 2022</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c335t-e9e90d265e9f452647edde8fa18973a6da033c6aac29730d822f24b037158a193</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735675722000043$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35063887$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sri-Ganeshan, Muhuntha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walker, Kimberly P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lines, Travis J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neal-Williams, Tom J.L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sheffield, Elizabeth R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yeoh, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taylor, David McD</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of a calcium, magnesium and phosphate clinical ordering tool in the emergency department</title><title>The American journal of emergency medicine</title><addtitle>Am J Emerg Med</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Calcium</subject><subject>Calcium phosphates</subject><subject>Choosing Wisely</subject><subject>Cost control</subject><subject>Electrolytes</subject><subject>Emergency health service</subject><subject>Emergency medical care</subject><subject>Emergency medical services</subject><subject>Emergency Service, Hospital</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Magnesium</subject><subject>Medical records</subject><subject>Observational studies</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Phosphate</subject><subject>Phosphates</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Risk factors</subject><subject>Utility</subject><issn>0735-6757</issn><issn>1532-8171</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU9rFTEUxYMo7bP2C7iQgJsunDF_JpMMuJHSVqHgRtchTe68l2EmGZNMod_ePF514aKrey_8zuFyDkLvKWkpof3nqTUTLC0jjLWEtoTwV2hHBWeNopK-RjsiuWh6KeQ5epvzRAilnejO0DkXpOdKyR2yN49m3kzxMeA4YoOtma3flk94MfsAua7YBIfXQ8zrwRTAdvbBVwrH5CD5sMclxhn7gMsBMCyQ9hDsE3awmlQWCOUdejOaOcPl87xAv25vfl5_a-5_3H2__nrfWM5FaWCAgTjWCxjGTrC-k-AcqNFQNUhuemcI57Y3xrJ6E6cYG1n3QLikQhk68At0dfJdU_y9QS568dnCPJsAccua9YwxRYXoKvrxP3SKWwr1uyMla0qCqEqxE2VTzDnBqNfkF5OeNCX6WIGe9LECfaxAE6prBVX04dl6e1jA_ZP8zbwCX04A1CwePSSdra-RgfMJbNEu-pf8_wCHHZcG</recordid><startdate>202203</startdate><enddate>202203</enddate><creator>Sri-Ganeshan, Muhuntha</creator><creator>Walker, Kimberly P.</creator><creator>Lines, Travis J.</creator><creator>Neal-Williams, Tom J.L.</creator><creator>Sheffield, Elizabeth R.</creator><creator>Yeoh, Michael J.</creator><creator>Taylor, David McD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202203</creationdate><title>Evaluation of a calcium, magnesium and phosphate clinical ordering tool in the emergency department</title><author>Sri-Ganeshan, Muhuntha ; Walker, Kimberly P. ; Lines, Travis J. ; Neal-Williams, Tom J.L. ; Sheffield, Elizabeth R. ; Yeoh, Michael J. ; Taylor, David McD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c335t-e9e90d265e9f452647edde8fa18973a6da033c6aac29730d822f24b037158a193</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Calcium</topic><topic>Calcium phosphates</topic><topic>Choosing Wisely</topic><topic>Cost control</topic><topic>Electrolytes</topic><topic>Emergency health service</topic><topic>Emergency medical care</topic><topic>Emergency medical services</topic><topic>Emergency Service, Hospital</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Magnesium</topic><topic>Medical records</topic><topic>Observational studies</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Phosphate</topic><topic>Phosphates</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Risk factors</topic><topic>Utility</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sri-Ganeshan, Muhuntha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walker, Kimberly P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lines, Travis J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neal-Williams, Tom J.L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sheffield, Elizabeth R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yeoh, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taylor, David McD</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The American journal of emergency medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sri-Ganeshan, Muhuntha</au><au>Walker, Kimberly P.</au><au>Lines, Travis J.</au><au>Neal-Williams, Tom J.L.</au><au>Sheffield, Elizabeth R.</au><au>Yeoh, Michael J.</au><au>Taylor, David McD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of a calcium, magnesium and phosphate clinical ordering tool in the emergency department</atitle><jtitle>The American journal of emergency medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Emerg Med</addtitle><date>2022-03</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>53</volume><spage>163</spage><epage>167</epage><pages>163-167</pages><issn>0735-6757</issn><eissn>1532-8171</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>35063887</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ajem.2022.01.003</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0735-6757 |
ispartof | The American journal of emergency medicine, 2022-03, Vol.53, p.163-167 |
issn | 0735-6757 1532-8171 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2622281554 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Adolescent Calcium Calcium phosphates Choosing Wisely Cost control Electrolytes Emergency health service Emergency medical care Emergency medical services Emergency Service, Hospital Humans Laboratories Magnesium Medical records Observational studies Patients Phosphate Phosphates Retrospective Studies Risk factors Utility |
title | Evaluation of a calcium, magnesium and phosphate clinical ordering tool in the emergency department |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-11T13%3A28%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20a%20calcium,%20magnesium%20and%20phosphate%20clinical%20ordering%20tool%20in%20the%20emergency%20department&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20journal%20of%20emergency%20medicine&rft.au=Sri-Ganeshan,%20Muhuntha&rft.date=2022-03&rft.volume=53&rft.spage=163&rft.epage=167&rft.pages=163-167&rft.issn=0735-6757&rft.eissn=1532-8171&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ajem.2022.01.003&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2627454508%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2627454508&rft_id=info:pmid/35063887&rft_els_id=S0735675722000043&rfr_iscdi=true |