This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Singal, B. M. Articles by Succop, P. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Singal, B. M. Articles by Succop, P. A. Pubmed/NCBI databases Substance via MeSH Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Efficacy of the Stat Serum Electrolyte Panel in the Management of Older Emergency Patients

Jerris R. Hedges, MS, MD

Paul A. Succop, PhD

The serum electrolyte panel (SEP) is commonly ordered in the workup of the emergency department (ED) patient This study was done. 1) to evaluate the efficacy of the SEP in terms of the identification of clinically significant abnormals (yield) and the impact on ther apeutic plan (impact) ; 2) to evaluate the reasons that the test was ordered; and 3) to compare the expected and realized contributions of the test to patient care Pretest and posttest questionnaires were administered to physicians managing 800 ED patients 55 years old for whom SEPs were ordered. The yield of significant abnormals was 16%. Fluid and electrolyte treatment plans were modified after the SEP results became known in 35% of cases This modification was associated with a normal SEP 48% of the time. Both the yield and the impact of the SEP were related to the reason that the test was ordered. The most common reason given was "to look for an unexpected abnormality" (50%) Physicians' expectations for the contribution of the SEP to patient care decisions were greater than the contributions realized after the results were known. However, in 115 cases, the test con tributed more than expected. Physicians predicted that 13% of the tests would contribute nothing to patient care. After the results were known, they felt that 38% had made no contribution. Physicians tend to overestimate the potential impact of the SEP but are oc casionally surprised by a result that contributes more than expected. Thus, there is consid erable pretest uncertainty about treatment decisions and normal results appear to have a substantial impact. Key words serum electrolytes; efficacy; cost containment, decision mak ing; utilization; utility. (Med Decis Making 1992;12:52-59)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 12, No. 1, 52-59 (1992)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9201200109


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?