Melissa Ann Pasao

All Publications

• Preventive Health Services Offered in a Sampling of US Emergency Departments, 2022-2023. The western journal of emergency medicine Bennett, C. L., Kit Delgado, M., Pasao, M., Espinola, J. A., Boggs, K. M., Camargo, C. A. 2024; 25 (5): 823-827

  Abstract

  In the United States, more chronic and preventive healthcare is being delivered in the emergency department (ED) setting. Understanding the availability of preventive health services in the ED setting is crucial. Our goal was to understand the availability of a subset of preventive health services in US EDs and explore how that has changed over time.In 2022-2023, using the National Emergency Department Inventory (NEDI)-USA, we surveyed a random 20% (1,064) sampling of all 5,613 US EDs. We asked directors of these EDs about the availability of and preference for 12 preventive health services, social worker availability, self-reported percentage of uninsured ED patients, and measures of ED crowding. We also asked about perceptions of barriers to implementing preventive health services in the ED. We used unadjusted and multivariable logistic regression models to compare service frequency in 2022-2023 to prior findings from 2008-2009 that represented a 5.7% random sampling of all EDs.Among 302 responders to the 2022-2023 survey (5.4% random sampling, 28.4% response rate), 94% reported offering at least one preventive health service, with a median of five services. The most common service offered was intimate partner violence screening (83%), while the least common was routine HIV screening (19%). Seven services (eg, intimate partner violence, alcohol risk, and smoking cessation screening) had a higher odds of being offered in 2022-2023 than in 2008-2009; findings were unchanged in sensitivity analyses. A small proportion of directors opposed offering preventive health services. However, many expressed concerns that preventive health services in the ED would lead to longer lengths of stay (56%), increased costs to their ED (58%), a diversion of staff time from providing acute care (50%), or that their patients would not have access to adequate follow-up (49%).Nearly all EDs offer at least one preventive health service. Many offer multiple services; rates were higher than those identified in 2008-2009, in both unadjusted and multivariable models. Although limited by the response rate, this work provides the most recent and comprehensive snapshot of the type and frequency of a subset of preventive health services currently offered in US EDs.

  View details for DOI 10.5811/westjem.18488

  View details for PubMedID 39319815

• Shorter Door-to-ECG Time Is Associated with Improved Mortality in STEMI Patients. Journal of clinical medicine Yiadom, M. Y., Gong, W., Bloos, S. M., Bunney, G., Kabeer, R., Pasao, M. A., Rodriguez, F., Baugh, C. W., Mills, A. M., Gavin, N., Podolsky, S. R., Salazar, G. A., Patterson, B., Mumma, B. E., Tanski, M. E., Liu, D. 2024; 13 (9)

  Abstract

  Background: Delayed intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is associated with higher mortality. The association of door-to-ECG (D2E) with clinical outcomes has not been directly explored in a contemporary US-based population. Methods: This was a three-year, 10-center, retrospective cohort study of ED-diagnosed patients with STEMI comparing mortality between those who received timely (<10 min) vs. untimely (>10 min) diagnostic ECG. Among survivors, we explored left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) dysfunction during the STEMI encounter and recovery upon post-discharge follow-up. Results: Mortality was lower among those who received a timely ECG where one-week mortality was 5% (21/420) vs. 10.2% (26/256) among those with untimely ECGs (p = 0.016), and in-hospital mortality was 6.0% (25/420) vs. 10.9% (28/256) (p = 0.028). Data to compare change in LVEF metrics were available in only 24% of patients during the STEMI encounter and 46.5% on discharge follow-up. Conclusions: D2E within 10 min may be associated with a 50% reduction in mortality among ED STEMI patients. LVEF dysfunction is the primary resultant morbidity among STEMI survivors but was infrequently assessed despite low LVEF being an indication for survival-improving therapy. It will be difficult to assess the impact of STEMI care interventions without more consistent LVEF assessment.

  View details for DOI 10.3390/jcm13092650

  View details for PubMedID 38731180

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC11084706

• Maximizing Equity in Acute Coronary Syndrome Screening across Sociodemographic Characteristics of Patients. Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) Bunney, G., Bloos, S. M., Graber-Naidich, A., Pasao, M. A., Kabeer, R., Kim, D., Miller, K., Yiadom, M. Y. 2023; 13 (12)

  Abstract

  We compared four methods to screen emergency department (ED) patients for an early electrocardiogram (ECG) to diagnose ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in a 5-year retrospective cohort through observed practice, objective application of screening protocol criteria, a predictive model, and a model augmenting human practice. We measured screening performance by sensitivity, missed acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and STEMI, and the number of ECGs required. Our cohort of 279,132 ED visits included 1397 patients who had a diagnosis of ACS. We found that screening by observed practice augmented with the model delivered the highest sensitivity for detecting ACS (92.9%, 95%CI: 91.4-94.2%) and showed little variation across sex, race, ethnicity, language, and age, demonstrating equity. Although it missed a few cases of ACS (7.6%) and STEMI (4.4%), it did require ECGs on an additional 11.1% of patients compared to current practice. Screening by protocol performed the worst, underdiagnosing young, Black, Native American, Alaskan or Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic patients. Thus, adding a predictive model to augment human practice improved the detection of ACS and STEMI and did so most equitably across the groups. Hence, combining human and model screening--rather than relying on either alone--may maximize ACS screening performance and equity.

  View details for DOI 10.3390/diagnostics13122053

  View details for PubMedID 37370948

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC10297640

• Variation in ACS patient hospital resource utilization: Is it time for advanced NSTEMI risk stratification in the ED? The American journal of emergency medicine Saxena, M., Bloos, S. M., Graber-Naidich, A., Sundaram, V., Pasao, M., Yiadom, M. Y. 2023; 70: 171-174

  Abstract

  A majority of patients who experience acute coronary syndrome (ACS) initially receive care in the emergency department (ED). Guidelines for care of patients experiencing ACS, specifically ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are well defined. We examine the utilization of hospital resources between patients with NSTEMI as compared to STEMI and unstable angina (UA). We then make the case that as NSTEMI patients are the majority of ACS cases, there is a great opportunity to risk stratify these patients in the emergency department.We examined hospital resource utilization measure between those with STEMI, NSTEMI, and UA. These included hospital length of stay (LOS), any intensive care unit (ICU) care time, and in-hospital mortality.The sample included 284,945 adult ED patients, of whom 1195 experienced ACS. Among the latter, 978 (70%) were diagnosed with NSTEMI, 225 (16%) with STEMI, and 194 with UA (14%). We observed 79.1% of STEMI patients receiving ICU care. 14.4% among NSTEMI patients, and 9.3% among UA patients. NSTEMI patients' mean hospital LOS was 3.7 days. This was shorter than that of non-ACS patients 4.75 days and UA patients 2.99. In-hospital mortality for NSTEMI was 1.6%, compared to, 4.4% for those with STEMI patients and 0% for UA. There are recommendations for risk stratification among NSTEMI patients to evaluate risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) that can be used in the ED to guide admission decisions and use of ICU care, thus optimizing care for a majority of ACS patients.

  View details for DOI 10.1016/j.ajem.2023.05.028

  View details for PubMedID 37327683

• Trends in female first-author abstracts at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Annual Meeting, 1990-2020. The American journal of emergency medicine Cash, R. E., Bennett, C. L., Boggs, K. M., Samuels-Kalow, M. E., Saxena, M., Pasao, M., Raja, A. S., Camargo, C. A. 2022; 63: 22-28

  Abstract

  To describe first author gender differences and characteristics in 1) Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Annual Meeting abstracts and 2) resulting manuscript publications.We performed cross-sectional evaluation of SAEM abstracts from 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020, compiling and reviewing a random sample of 100 abstracts for each year (total n = 700 abstracts). We documented abstract characteristics, including first author gender, and used the 2020 SAEM scoring rubric. We then searched PubMed to identify manuscript publications resulting from abstracts from 1990 to 2015 (n = 600). Finally, among abstracts that resulted in manuscript publication, we identified first and last author gender on both the abstracts and the resulting publication.Overall, 29% (202/695; n = 5 missing gender) of abstracts had female first authors. Female first authors increased over time (e.g., 17% in 1990 to 35% in 2020). Abstract quality scores were similar (both median [interquartile range] of 11 ([9-12]). Overall, 42% (n = 254/600) of abstracts resulted in a manuscript publication, 39% (n = 65/202) with female and 44% (n = 189/493) with male first authors (p = 0.26). The median time (IQR) from abstract to manuscript publication was longer for abstracts with female first authors vs. those with male first authors (2 [1-3] years and 1 [1, 2] years, p < 0.02); 77% and 78% of publications resulting from abstracts with female and male first authors, respectively, had the same first author. Female first author abstracts more often converted to a male first author manuscript publication (18%, n = 12/65) compared to male first author abstracts converting to female first author publications (7%, n = 14/189).A minority of SAEM abstracts, and manuscript publications resulting from them, had female first authors. Abstracts with female first authors took longer to achieve manuscript publication, and almost a fifth of female first author abstracts resulted in male first author manuscript publication.

  View details for DOI 10.1016/j.ajem.2022.10.028

  View details for PubMedID 36306648

• How we compare: Society for Academic Emergency Medicine faculty membership demographics. AEM education and training Bennett, C. L., Ling, A. Y., Agrawal, P., Pierce, A., Pasao, M. A., Ray, D., Cleveland Manchanda, E. C. 2022; 6 (Suppl 1): S93-S96

  Abstract

  The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) has a core value to promote a diverse workforce for patients, providers, and learners. Understanding the organization's membership demographics and how that compares to the academic emergency medicine (EM) workforce is prerequisite to the success of this core value.We obtained 2020 faculty membership data sets from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and SAEM; data included self-reported sex, race and ethnicity, and academic rank (professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and instructor). We employed standardized mean difference (SMD) to quantify difference in proportions between data sets.We identified 5874 (AAMC) and 2785 (SAEM) faculty. The AAMC (38.3%) and the SAEM (41.3%) had similar proportions of overall female faculty (SMD 0.063) although SAEM (compared to AAMC) had a higher proportion of female full (25.5% vs. 20.5%, SMD 0.121) and assistant (46.5% vs. 41.2%, SMD 0.106) professors. With the exception of Hispanic instructors, SAEM (compared to AAMC) also had higher proportions of Black and Hispanic female faculty at all ranks (SMD ranging from 0.109 to 0.777).SAEM faculty demographics generally reflect that of the academic EM workforce demographics reported in the AAMC database and that overall, the proportions of female, Black, and Hispanic faculty in SAEM are slightly larger than those in the AAMC database. However, faculty who identify as Black or Hispanic in both the AAMC and the SAEM databases (compared to the overall U.S. population) are dramatically underrepresented.

  View details for DOI 10.1002/aet2.10747

  View details for PubMedID 35783079

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC9222880

• How we compare: Society for Academic Emergency Medicine faculty membership demographics AEM EDUCATION AND TRAINING Bennett, C. L., Ling, A. Y., Agrawal, P., Pierce, A., Pasao, M. A., Ray, D., Manchanda, E. 2022; 6: S93-S96

  View details for DOI 10.1002/aet2.10747

  View details for Web of Science ID 000814785300001