evaluating-syncope

Risk-stratifies syncope presentations using San Francisco, Canadian, and OESIL rules. Use when evaluating syncope, determining admission criteria, or risk-stratifying fainting episodes.

11 stars

Best use case

evaluating-syncope is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.

Risk-stratifies syncope presentations using San Francisco, Canadian, and OESIL rules. Use when evaluating syncope, determining admission criteria, or risk-stratifying fainting episodes.

Teams using evaluating-syncope should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.

When to use this skill

  • You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.

When not to use this skill

  • You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
  • You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.

Installation

Claude Code / Cursor / Codex

$curl -o ~/.claude/skills/evaluating-syncope/SKILL.md --create-dirs "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/CaseMark/skills/main/skills/med/evaluating-syncope/SKILL.md"

Manual Installation

  1. Download SKILL.md from GitHub
  2. Place it in .claude/skills/evaluating-syncope/SKILL.md inside your project
  3. Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill

How evaluating-syncope Compares

Feature / Agentevaluating-syncopeStandard Approach
Platform SupportNot specifiedLimited / Varies
Context Awareness High Baseline
Installation ComplexityUnknownN/A

Frequently Asked Questions

What does this skill do?

Risk-stratifies syncope presentations using San Francisco, Canadian, and OESIL rules. Use when evaluating syncope, determining admission criteria, or risk-stratifying fainting episodes.

Where can I find the source code?

You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.

SKILL.md Source

# Evaluating Syncope

Risk-stratifies syncope presentations using validated clinical decision rules to determine disposition, identify high-risk cardiac etiologies, and document medical decision-making that supports admission or discharge decisions.

## Why This Skill Exists

Syncope accounts for 1-3% of all emergency department visits and 1-6% of hospital admissions. The challenge is separating the 85% of patients with benign vasovagal or orthostatic syncope from the 10-15% with potentially life-threatening cardiac etiologies. Missed cardiac syncope carries a 6-month mortality rate of 10-30%. Conversely, unnecessary hospital admission for low-risk syncope wastes $2.4 billion annually in the United States alone.

Risk stratification tools exist to guide this decision, but their application requires understanding each tool's derivation population, validated endpoints, sensitivity, and specificity. No single rule is perfect—the San Francisco Syncope Rule (SFSR), Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS), OESIL score, EGSYS score, and Boston Syncope Rule each have distinct strengths and limitations. This skill ensures systematic application and documentation.

---

## Checkpoint A: Pre-Draft Intake (Mandatory)

1. What were the exact circumstances of the syncopal event (position, activity, prodromal symptoms, witnesses)?
2. Was there true loss of consciousness with spontaneous recovery, or was this pre-syncope, seizure, or mechanical fall?
3. What are the patient's vital signs including orthostatic measurements (lying, sitting, standing at 1 and 3 minutes)?
4. Is there any history of structural heart disease, arrhythmia, heart failure, or family history of sudden cardiac death?
5. What medications is the patient taking (QT-prolonging drugs, antihypertensives, diuretics, antiarrhythmics)?
6. Was there any witnessed seizure activity, tongue biting, incontinence, or prolonged post-event confusion?
7. What does the ECG show (rhythm, intervals including QTc, axis, morphology, comparison with prior)?
8. Has hemoglobin, troponin, and BNP/NT-proBNP been obtained?

### Documents to Request

- 12-lead ECG (current and any prior for comparison)
- Orthostatic vital sign measurements with times
- Complete medication list with dosages
- Prior cardiac history and testing (echocardiogram, stress test, Holter/event monitor)
- Witness statements if available
- EMS documentation of on-scene findings and rhythm
- Previous syncope evaluations
- Family history documentation (especially sudden death age <50)

---

## Step 1: Differentiate True Syncope from Mimics

Before applying risk stratification, confirm the event is true syncope (transient loss of consciousness due to cerebral hypoperfusion with rapid spontaneous recovery):

| Diagnosis | Key Distinguishing Features | Action |
|---|---|---|
| True syncope | Brief LOC, spontaneous recovery, no post-ictal state | Continue with risk stratification |
| Seizure | Witnessed tonic-clonic activity, lateral tongue bite, prolonged post-ictal confusion >5 min, elevated prolactin | Neurology pathway |
| Mechanical fall | No LOC, trip/slip mechanism, focal injury | Trauma evaluation |
| Vertigo/presyncope | Near-faint without LOC, room-spinning sensation | Separate evaluation pathway |
| Psychogenic | Prolonged "unresponsiveness" with normal vitals, eyes held closed | Psychiatric assessment |
| Hypoglycemia | Low glucose, diabetes history, recovery with dextrose | Endocrine/metabolic |
| TIA/stroke | Focal neurologic deficits, LOC atypical for posterior circulation only | Stroke pathway |

---

## Step 2: Apply Validated Risk Stratification Tools

### San Francisco Syncope Rule (SFSR)

Predicts 7-day serious outcomes. Any positive criterion = high risk:

- **C**ongestive heart failure history
- **H**ematocrit <30%
- **E**CG abnormal (non-sinus rhythm or new changes)
- **S**hortness of breath
- **S**ystolic BP <90 mmHg at triage

Sensitivity 96%, specificity 62%. Note: Validated only for ED disposition; does not risk-stratify among high-risk patients.

### Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS)

30-day serious adverse event prediction (score range -3 to +11):

| Feature | Points |
|---|---|
| Predisposition to vasovagal (warm environment, prolonged standing, fear/pain/emotion) | -1 |
| Heart disease history (CAD, atrial fibrillation, CHF, valvular disease) | +1 |
| Any ED systolic BP <90 or >180 mmHg | +2 |
| Elevated troponin (>99th percentile URL) | +2 |
| Abnormal QRS axis (<-30 or >100 degrees) | +1 |
| QRS duration >130 ms | +1 |
| QTc >480 ms | +2 |
| ED diagnosis of cardiac syncope | +2 |

Risk categories: Very low (-3 to -2): 0.4%; Low (-1 to 0): 1.2%; Medium (1 to 3): 3.1%; High (4 to 5): 9.4%; Very high (6+): 28.9%.

### OESIL Score

1-year mortality predictor (1 point each):

- Age >65 years
- History of cardiovascular disease
- Syncope without prodrome
- Abnormal ECG

Score 0: 0% mortality; Score 1: 0.6%; Score 2: 14%; Score 3-4: 29%.

---

## Step 3: ECG Interpretation for Syncope-Specific Findings

The ECG is the single highest-yield test in syncope evaluation. Systematically assess:

1. **Rate and rhythm**: Bradycardia <40, pauses >3 sec, high-grade AV block, tachyarrhythmias
2. **PR interval**: First-degree block >200 ms, Mobitz I vs II, third-degree block
3. **QRS duration**: Bundle branch block (new LBBB is high risk), fascicular blocks
4. **QT interval**: QTc >480 ms (long QT syndrome), QTc <340 ms (short QT)
5. **ST-T wave**: Brugada pattern (coved ST in V1-V3), ARVC (epsilon waves, T-wave inversion V1-V3), early repolarization in inferior/lateral leads
6. **Hypertrophy**: LVH suggesting HCM or aortic stenosis
7. **Pre-excitation**: Delta waves (WPW syndrome)

**High-risk ECG findings requiring admission**: Any of the above abnormalities warrant cardiac monitoring, even with otherwise low-risk score.

---

## Step 4: Disposition Decision Framework

| Risk Level | Criteria Met | Disposition | Monitoring |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low risk | SFSR negative, CSRS ≤0, normal ECG, no cardiac history, classic vasovagal features | Discharge with PCP follow-up 1-2 weeks | None required |
| Intermediate risk | CSRS 1-3, isolated ECG abnormality, age >60 without cardiac history | Observation unit 12-24 hours with telemetry | Continuous cardiac monitoring |
| High risk | CSRS ≥4, OESIL ≥2, abnormal ECG with structural heart disease, exertional syncope, syncope causing injury | Hospital admission with telemetry | Cardiology consultation, echocardiogram, consider EP study |
| Critical | Syncope with sustained arrhythmia, hemodynamic instability, acute coronary syndrome | ICU admission | Continuous monitoring, emergent cardiology |

---

## Step 5: Discharge Planning for Low-Risk Patients

For patients deemed safe for discharge, document:

1. Risk score applied and result
2. Normal ECG interpretation with comparison to prior if available
3. Orthostatic vitals negative
4. No high-risk features (exertional syncope, family sudden death, structural heart disease)
5. Clear return precautions: recurrent syncope, chest pain, palpitations, exertional symptoms
6. Driving restrictions counseled per state law (many states require 3-6 month event-free period)
7. Follow-up plan: PCP within 1-2 weeks, cardiology referral if indicated
8. Activity modifications if orthostatic (hydration, compression stockings, slow position changes)

---

## Checkpoint B: Post-Draft Alignment (Mandatory)

1. Is true syncope confirmed and differentiated from seizure, presyncope, and mechanical fall?
2. Are at least two validated risk stratification tools applied and documented with scores?
3. Does the ECG interpretation address all syncope-specific high-risk patterns?
4. Is the disposition decision clearly supported by the risk stratification results?
5. For discharges, are return precautions and driving counseling documented?

---

## Quality Audit

| # | Criterion | Pass/Fail |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | True syncope vs. mimic differentiation documented | |
| 2 | Orthostatic vital signs measured and recorded at 1 and 3 minutes | |
| 3 | 12-lead ECG obtained and systematically interpreted | |
| 4 | At least one validated risk score calculated and documented | |
| 5 | Cardiac history specifically queried (CAD, CHF, arrhythmia, valvular) | |
| 6 | Family history of sudden cardiac death under age 50 assessed | |
| 7 | Medication review for QT-prolonging and hypotensive agents completed | |
| 8 | Exertional syncope specifically asked about and documented | |
| 9 | Troponin obtained for intermediate/high-risk patients | |
| 10 | Disposition supported by documented clinical reasoning | |
| 11 | Driving counseling documented for discharged patients | |
| 12 | Return precautions specific to syncope provided | |
| 13 | Follow-up arranged with timeline specified | |
| 14 | ECG compared to prior if available in system | |

---

## Guidelines

1. **Syncope in patients under 35 with exertion** must prompt evaluation for HCM, ARVC, long QT, Brugada, and anomalous coronary arteries—these are leading causes of sudden cardiac death in young athletes
2. **No single risk rule is sufficient**—apply SFSR for 7-day events and CSRS for 30-day events, and reconcile conflicting results conservatively
3. **Orthostatic vitals require 3 minutes of standing**—measurements taken at 1 minute alone miss 25% of orthostatic hypotension cases
4. **QTc must be calculated using Bazett correction** and verified manually if heart rate is <50 or >100 (automated calculations are unreliable at extremes)
5. **First-time syncope over age 60** warrants higher suspicion for cardiac etiology even with a normal initial workup—consider outpatient event monitor
6. **Vasovagal syncope diagnosis is one of exclusion**—document the positive features (prodrome, trigger, position) AND the absence of high-risk features
7. **Recurrent syncope with negative workup** may warrant tilt-table testing or implantable loop recorder discussion—document this in the discharge plan

Related Skills

evaluating-abdominal-emergencies

11
from CaseMark/skills

Structures abdominal pain workups with differential by quadrant and surgical consultation criteria. Use when assessing acute abdomen, determining imaging needs, or identifying surgical emergencies.

evaluating-transition-bonds

11
from CaseMark/skills

Structures transition bond analysis with credibility assessment and transition plan evaluation. Use when evaluating transition bonds, assessing issuer transition plans, or analyzing climate transition financing.

evaluating-sustainability-linked-loans

11
from CaseMark/skills

Structures SLL analysis with KPI assessment, margin ratchet evaluation, and ambition verification. Use when evaluating sustainability-linked loans, assessing SLL KPIs, or analyzing margin ratchets.

evaluating-social-bonds

11
from CaseMark/skills

Structures social bond analysis with eligible population targeting, impact metrics, and SBP alignment. Use when evaluating social bonds, assessing social bond frameworks, or measuring social outcomes.

evaluating-investment-opportunities

11
from CaseMark/skills

Structures PE/VC investment evaluation with business model assessment, market analysis, and return potential. Use when evaluating deals, screening investment opportunities, or assessing company fit.

evaluating-green-bonds

11
from CaseMark/skills

Structures green bond analysis with use-of-proceeds verification, impact reporting, and ICMA alignment. Use when evaluating green bonds, verifying green credentials, or analyzing sustainable debt.

evaluating-fintech-business-models

11
from CaseMark/skills

Structures fintech company analysis with unit economics, customer acquisition, and regulatory moat assessment. Use when evaluating fintech companies, analyzing unit economics, or assessing fintech business models.

evaluating-upstream-energy-assets

11
from CaseMark/skills

Assesses upstream oil and gas assets with reserve estimation, production decline curves, and net asset value modeling. Use when evaluating E&P assets, analyzing reserve reports, or modeling upstream economics.

evaluating-timber-and-agriculture-assets

11
from CaseMark/skills

Assesses timberland and agricultural investments with biological growth rates, harvest economics, and land value appreciation. Use when evaluating timber investments, analyzing farmland, or assessing biological asset returns.

evaluating-sum-of-parts-activism

11
from CaseMark/skills

Assesses conglomerate break-up activism with segment valuation, separation feasibility, and tax-free qualification analysis. Use when evaluating SOTP activism, analyzing break-up proposals, or modeling separation value.

evaluating-spin-off-investment-opportunities

11
from CaseMark/skills

Assesses spin-off equity with forced selling dynamics, orphaned security identification, and standalone valuation analysis. Use when evaluating spin-off investments, identifying forced-sell situations, or analyzing newly public entities.

evaluating-post-reorganization-equity

11
from CaseMark/skills

Assesses post-emergence equity with clean balance sheet analysis, improved capital structure, and re-rating potential. Use when evaluating post-reorg equity, analyzing emergence opportunities, or assessing restructured company value.