Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Apr 29;3(3):e12732.
doi: 10.1002/emp2.12732. eCollection 2022 Jun.

Interrater agreement of the HEART score history component: A chart review study

Alec J Pawlukiewicz  1 , Matthew R Geringer  2 , W Tyler Davis  1 , Daniel R Nassery  2 , Michael D April  1 , Matthew J Streitz  1 , Jessica M Hyams  1 , Alex W Martin  3 , Sadie A Martin  3 , Joshua J Oliver  4
Affiliations

Interrater agreement of the HEART score history component: A chart review study

Alec J Pawlukiewicz et al. J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. .

Abstract

Study objectives: This study investigated the interrater reliability of the history component of the HEART (history, electrocardiogram, age, risk, troponin) score between physicians in emergency medicine (EM) and internal medicine (IM) at 1 tertiary-care center.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective, secondary analysis of 60 encounters selected randomly from a database of 417 patients with chest pain presenting from January to June 2016 to an urban tertiary-care center. A total of 4 raters (1 EM attending, 1 EM resident, 1 IM attending, and 1 IM resident) scored the previously abstracted history data from these encounters.The primary outcome was the interrater agreement of HEART score history components, as measured by kappa coefficient, between EM and IM attending physicians. Secondary outcomes included the agreement between attending and resident physicians, overall agreement, pairwise percent agreement, and differences in scores assigned.

Results: The kappa value for the EM attending physician and IM attending physician was 0.33 with 55% agreement. Interrater agreement of the other pairs was substantial between EM attending and resident but was otherwise fair to moderate. Percent agreement between the other pairs ranged from 48.3% to 80%. There was a significant difference in scores assigned and the subgroup in which there was disagreement between the raters demonstrated significantly higher scores by the EM attending and resident when compared to the IM attending.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates fair agreement between EM and IM attending physicians in the history component of the HEART score with significantly higher scores by the EM attending physician in cases of disagreement at 1 tertiary-care center.

Keywords: HEART score; agreement; emergency medicine; history; internal medicine; interrater.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None.

References

    1. Backus BE, Six AJ, Kelder JC, et al. A prospective validation of the HEART score for chest pain patients at the emergency department. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168(3):2153–2158. 10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.01.255 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Green SM, Schriger DL. A Methodological Appraisal of the HEART Score and Its Variants. Ann Emerg Med. 2021;78(2):253–266. 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2021.02.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Niven WGP, Wilson D, Goodacre S, et al. Do all HEART Scores beat the same: evaluating the interoperator reliability of the HEART score. Emerg Med J. 2018;35(12):732–738. 10.1136/emermed-2018-207540 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gershon CA, Yagapen AN, Lin A, et al. Inter‐rater reliability of the HEART score. Acad Emerg Med Off J Soc Acad Emerg Med. 2019;26(5):552–555. 10.1111/acem.13665 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mahler SA, Riley RF, Hiestand BC, et al. The HEART pathway randomized trial: identifying emergency department patients with acute chest pain for early discharge. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015;8(2):195–203. 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.114.001384 - DOI - PMC - PubMed