Syncope Pathways and the Unnecessary Admission: Risk Scores, Observation Units and What Actually Reduces Bed Days
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22498025Keywords:
Syncope, Risk assessment, Clinical decision rules, Emergency service, hospital, Observation unitsAbstract
Roughly one-third of syncope patients evaluated in United States emergency departments have historically been admitted, and
reported admission rates after emergency syncope evaluation range from under 20% in Canada to over 80% in the United
States, a spread far wider than any difference in underlying illness could explain. Validated risk scores exist to narrow that
gap: the Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) discriminates well (area under the curve 0.91 in its derivation and validation
cohorts, 0.85 internationally across 8 countries), and its very-low- and low-risk categories carry 30-day serious adverse event
rates of 0.3% and 0.7%. The older San Francisco Syncope Rule performs far less consistently outside its own derivation set:
sensitivity fell from 96-98% at derivation to 74-89% in independent validations, with one external cohort finding the rule
would have cut admissions by 41% only by also missing more serious outcomes than its authors intended. A retrospective
review of 200 hospitalized syncope patients across 11 emergency departments found that 39% had a low-risk CSRS despite
being admitted, with an estimated 30-day serious event rate under 1% in that group -- a concrete estimate of how much
current admission practice may not track actual risk. Yet the evidence that simply handing clinicians a risk score changes
what they do is weaker than the scores' own statistics suggest: a retrospective cohort study found that applying syncope
guidelines in the emergency department did not reduce admission rates, and a pilot stepped-wedge implementation trial of the
Canadian syncope pathway saw reach into eligible patients fall from 67.5% to 55.0% over its rollout even as physician
adoption and recommendation fidelity rose. Structural changes look more durable: a randomized trial of a dedicated
emergency department observation protocol for intermediate-risk syncope cut admission from 92% to 15% and hospital length
of stay from 47 to 29 hours, with similar safety outcomes at 30 days and 6 months and a modest cost saving, changes a risk
score alone cannot deliver without somewhere structured to send the patients it identifies as not needing an inpatient bed. This
review sets the risk-score evidence and the structural-pathway evidence for syncope side by side and argues that the honest, if
less satisfying, conclusion is that a validated score is necessary but not sufficient: the observation unit or structured pathway
built to receive its low-risk output is doing most of the work of actually reducing bed days.
References
Quinn JV, Stiell IG, McDermott DA, et al. "Derivation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to predict patients with short-term serious outcomes". Ann Emerg Med 43(2004):224-232.
Quinn J, McDermott D, Stiell I, et al. "Prospective validation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to predict patients with serious outcomes". Ann Emerg Med 47(2006):448-454.
Sun BC, Mangione CM, Merchant G, et al. "External validation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule". Ann Emerg Med 49(2007):420-427.
Birnbaum A, Esses D, Bijur P, et al. "Failure to validate the San Francisco Syncope Rule in an independent emergency department population". Ann Emerg Med 52(2008):151-159.
EB Medicine. "Calculated Decisions: San Francisco Syncope Rule" (meta-analyses of Ann Emerg Med and CMAJ pooled validation cohorts). EB Medicine, Calculated Decisions (2021).
Thiruganasambandamoorthy V, Kwong K, Wells GA, et al. "Development of the Canadian Syncope Risk Score to predict serious adverse events after emergency department assessment of syncope". CMAJ 188(2016):E289-E298.
Thiruganasambandamoorthy V, Sivilotti MLA, Le Sage N, et al. "Multicenter Emergency Department Validation of the Canadian Syncope Risk Score". JAMA Intern Med 180(2020):737-744.
Du Fay de Lavallaz J, Badertscher P, Nestelberger T, et al. "International Validation of the Canadian Syncope Risk Score: A Cohort Study". Ann Intern Med 175(2022):783-794.
"Potential Impact of Using Canadian Syncope Risk Score on Emergency Department Hospitalizations for Syncope". eScholarship, University of California (retrospective cohort analysis).
Thiruganasambandamoorthy V, et al. "Implementation of the Canadian syncope pathway: a pilot non-randomized stepped wedge trial". CJEM 25(2023).
Ottawa Hospital Research Institute Syncope Group. "Development of practice recommendations based on the Canadian Syncope Risk Score and identification of barriers and facilitators for implementation". Can J Emerg Med / CJEM (2023).
Sun BC, McCreath H, Liang LJ, et al. "Randomized clinical trial of an emergency department observation syncope protocol versus routine inpatient admission". Ann Emerg Med 64(2014):167-175.
Sandhu RK, et al. "Application of Syncope Guidelines in the Emergency Department Do Not Reduce Admission Rates: A Retrospective Cohort Study". Can J Cardiol 34(2018), S0828-282X(18)30505-1.
Solbiati M, Casazza G, Dipaola F, et al. "Syncope in the Emergency Department: A Practical Approach". J Clin Med 13(2024):3231; and: "A Rational Evaluation of the Syncope Patient: Optimizing the Emergency Department Visit". Medicina 57(2021):514 (admission rate range across countries).
Baugh CW, Venkatesh AK, Hilton JA, et al. "Making Greater Use Of Dedicated Hospital Observation Units For Many Short-Stay Patients Could Save $3.1 Billion A Year". Health Aff (Millwood) 31(2012):2314-2323.
