13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Gender Differences in CDC Guideline Compliance for STIs in Emergency Departments

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are a common reason for emergency department (ED) visits. The objective of this study was to determine if there were gender differences in adherence to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) STI diagnosis and treatment guidelines, as documented by emergency providers.

          Methods

          We performed a retrospective chart review to identify patients treated for urethritis, cervicitis, and pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in the EDs of three hospitals in a Pennsylvania network during a calendar year. Cases were reviewed to assess for compliance with CDC guidelines. We used descriptive statistics to assess the distributions of study variables by patient sex. In the analysis we used Student’s t-tests, chi-square tests, and logistic regression. Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.

          Results

          We identified 286 patient records. Of these, we excluded 39 for the following reasons: incorrect disease coding; the patient was admitted and treated as an inpatient for his/her disease; or the patient left the ED after refusing care. Of the 247 participants, 159 (64.4%) were female. Females were significantly younger (26.6 years, SD=8.0) than males (31.2, SD=11.5%), (95% confidence interval [CI] [2.0– 7.0], p=0.0003). All of the males (n=88) in the cohort presented with urethritis; 25.8% of females presented with cervicitis, and 74.2% with PID. Physician compliance for the five CDC criteria ranged from 68.8% for patient history to 93.5% for patient diagnostic testing, including urine pregnancy and gonorrhea/chlamydia cultures. We observed significant differences by patient sex. Fifty-four percent of the charts had symptoms recorded for female patients that were consistent with CDC characteristics for diagnostic criteria compared to over 95% for males, OR=16.9; 95% CI [5.9–48.4], p<0.001. Similar results were observed for patient discharge instructions, with physicians completely documenting delivery of discharge instructions to 51.6% of females compared to 97.7% of complete documentation in males, OR=42.3; 95% CI [10.0–178.6] p<0.001). We observed no significant sex differences in physician documentation for physical exam or for therapeutic antibiotic treatment.

          Conclusion

          This retrospective study found patient gender differences in how emergency providers complied with documenting with regard to the 2010 CDC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of urethritis, cervicitis, and PID. Specifically medical records of men were more likely to have complete documentation of symptoms recorded (95% CI 5.9–48.4) and to have discharge instruction documentation (95% CI 10.0–178.6) than records of women.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2010.

          These guidelines for the treatment of persons who have or are at risk for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) were updated by CDC after consultation with a group of professionals knowledgeable in the field of STDs who met in Atlanta on April 18-30, 2009. The information in this report updates the 2006 Guidelines for Treatment of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (MMWR 2006;55[No. RR-11]). Included in these updated guidelines is new information regarding 1) the expanded diagnostic evaluation for cervicitis and trichomoniasis; 2) new treatment recommendations for bacterial vaginosis and genital warts; 3) the clinical efficacy of azithromycin for chlamydial infections in pregnancy; 4) the role of Mycoplasma genitalium and trichomoniasis in urethritis/cervicitis and treatment-related implications; 5) lymphogranuloma venereum proctocolitis among men who have sex with men; 6) the criteria for spinal fluid examination to evaluate for neurosyphilis; 7) the emergence of azithromycin-resistant Treponema pallidum; 8) the increasing prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae; 9) the sexual transmission of hepatitis C; 10) diagnostic evaluation after sexual assault; and 11) STD prevention approaches.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Chart reviews in emergency medicine research: Where are the methods?

            Medical chart reviews are often used in emergency medicine research. However, the reliability of data abstracted by chart reviews is seldom examined critically. The objective of this investigation was to determine the proportion of emergency medicine research articles that use data from chart reviews and the proportions that report methods of case selection, abstractor training, monitoring and blinding, and interrater agreement. Research articles published in three emergency medicine journals from January 1989 through December 1993 were identified. The articles that used chart reviews were analyzed. Of 986 original research articles that were identified, 244 (25%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 22% to 28%) relied on chart reviews. Inclusion criteria were described in 98% (95% CI, 96% to 99%), and 73% (95% CI, 67% to 79%) defined the variables being analyzed. Other methods were seldom mentioned: abstractor training, 18% (95% CI, 13% to 23%); standardized abstraction forms, 11% (95% CI, 7% to 15%); periodic abstractor monitoring, 4% (95% CI, 2% to 7%); and abstractor blinding to study hypotheses, 3% (95% CI, 1% to 6%). Interrater reliability was mentioned in 5% (95% CI, 3% to 9%) and tested statistically in .4% (95% CI, 0% to 2%). A 15% random sample of articles was reassessed by a second investigator; interrater agreement was high for all eight criteria. Chart review is a common method of data collection in emergency medicine research. Yet, information about the quality of the data is usually lacking. Chart reviews should be held to higher methodologic standards, or the conclusions of these studies may be in error.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Gender disparity in analgesic treatment of emergency department patients with acute abdominal pain.

              Oligoanalgesia for acute abdominal pain historically has been attributed to the provider's fear of masking serious underlying pathology. The authors assessed whether a gender disparity exists in the administration of analgesia for acute abdominal pain. This was a prospective cohort study of consecutive nonpregnant adults with acute nontraumatic abdominal pain of less than 72 hours' duration who presented to an urban emergency department (ED) from April 5, 2004, to January 4, 2005. The main outcome measures were analgesia administration and time to analgesic treatment. Standard comparative statistics were used. Of the 981 patients enrolled (mean age +/- standard deviation [SD] 41 +/- 17 years; 65% female), 62% received any analgesic treatment. Men and women had similar mean pain scores, but women were less likely to receive any analgesia (60% vs. 67%, difference 7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1% to 13.6%) and less likely to receive opiates (45% vs. 56%, difference 11%, 95% CI = 4.1% to 17.1%). These differences persisted when gender-specific diagnoses were excluded (47% vs. 56%, difference 9%, 95% CI = 2.5% to 16.2%). After controlling for age, race, triage class, and pain score, women were still 13% to 25% less likely than men to receive opioid analgesia. There was no gender difference in the receipt of nonopioid analgesia. Women waited longer to receive their analgesia (median time 65 minutes vs. 49 minutes, difference 16 minutes, 95% CI = 3.5 to 33 minutes). Gender bias is a possible explanation for oligoanalgesia in women who present to the ED with acute abdominal pain. Standardized protocols for analgesic administration may ameliorate this discrepancy.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                West J Emerg Med
                West J Emerg Med
                WestJEM
                Western Journal of Emergency Medicine
                Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine
                1936-900X
                1936-9018
                April 2017
                08 March 2017
                : 18
                : 3
                : 390-397
                Affiliations
                Lehigh Valley Hospital and Health Network/USF MCOM CC & I-78, Department of Emergency Medicine, Allentown, Pennsylvania
                Author notes
                Address for Correspondence: Marna Rayl Greenberg, DO, MPH, Lehigh Valley Hospital and Health Network/USF MCOM CC & I-78, Department of Emergency Medicine, LVH-M-5th Floor, Residency Suite, 2545 Schoenersville Road, Bethlehem, PA 18017. Email: Marna.greenberg@ 123456lvhn.org .
                Article
                wjem-18-390
                10.5811/westjem.2016.12.32440
                5391888
                33e73739-fb6d-4b84-9aa7-d5f769b0a61d
                Copyright: © 2017 Kane et al.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) License. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                : 11 September 2016
                : 09 November 2016
                : 04 December 2016
                Categories
                Endemic Infections
                Original Research

                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                Emergency medicine & Trauma

                Comments

                Comment on this article