Emergency Medicine Journal最新文献

Background: Ultrasound is now readily available in the prehospital setting and its use has been highlighted as one of the top research priorities in prehospital care. Clinical examination remains the standard care for diagnosing lung injury in the prehospital setting, yet this can be challenging and has poor diagnostic accuracy. This review evaluates the accuracy of prehospital ultrasound for the diagnoses of pneumothorax, haemothorax and pulmonary contusions in patients with trauma.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched. Only papers reporting on the diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound for traumatic pneumothorax, haemothorax or pulmonary contusions; in a prehospital or helicopter emergency medical service setting; and with CT or operative findings as a reference standard, were included. Non-English studies or articles that reported on animal studies were excluded. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies.

Results: Six observational studies, four with low risk of bias and two with some concerns, reporting on 1908 thoracic ultrasound examinations in patients with trauma, were included. For pneumothorax, meta-analysis yielded pooled sensitivity of 29% (95% CI 22% to 37%, I²=0%) and pooled specificity of 98% (95% CI 97% to 99%, I²=0%). Insufficient data were reported for a reliable meta-analysis on the presence of haemothorax. Only one study reported on the presence of pulmonary contusions and therefore no analysis was conducted.

Conclusion: Prehospital ultrasound is highly specific but has a lower sensitivity for the presence of pneumothorax when compared with hospital studies. Further research is required, alongside education and training of prehospital providers, to further explore the factors that account for the differences observed in this review.

Prospero registration number: CRD42023365034.

Background: Ambulance clinicians use pre-alert calls to inform emergency departments (EDs) about the arrival of critically ill patients. However, there is variation in guidance between local ambulance service policies in terms of what should be pre-alerted and how pre-alerts should happen. We conducted a national online survey to understand the use of ambulance pre-alerts and to inform recommendations for practice and guidance.

Methods: Ambulance clinicians in England involved in pre-alert decision-making were recruited via ambulance trusts and social media to complete an anonymous online survey conducted during May-July 2023. Quantitative data was analysed descriptively using SPSS (version 28) and free-text responses are reported to illustrate the quantitative findings.

Results: We included 1298 valid responses from 10 English ambulance services. There was variation in practice at all stages of the pre-alert process, including the reported frequency of pre-alert (7.1% several times a shift, 14.9% once/two times per month). Most respondents reported that pre-alerts were delivered directly to the ED, but 32.8% reported pre-alerting via an ambulance control room. A third of respondents always used mnemonics to guide a pre-alert (eg, ATMIST (Age, Time of Incident, Mechanism of injury, Injuries, Signs, Treatments)), but 10.2% reported not using any fixed format.The type of guidance used to identify patients for pre-alert varied between clinicians and ambulance services, with local ambulance service guidance being most commonly used, and 20% stating they never use national guidelines. Respondents reported variable understanding of appropriate conditions for pre-alert, with paramedic students particularly wanted further guidance on trauma in older patients and medical pre-alerts. 29% of respondents reported receiving specific pre-alert training, while 50% reported never receiving feedback.

Conclusion: We identified variation in pre-alert processes and practices that may result in uncertainty and challenges for ambulance clinicians providing time-critical care. Guidance and training on the use of pre-alerts may promote more consistent processes and practices.

Background: On-scene improvised and interim decontamination protocols in the Initial Operational Response to chemical incidents aim for rapid intervention to minimise injury before specialist capabilities arrive. This study examines the effectiveness of UK improvised and interim protocols conducted in sequence.

Method: A simulant with methyl salicylate (MeS) in vegetable oil and a fluorophore was applied to participants' shoulders, arms and legs. Participants either received no decontamination or used one of four decontamination protocols: improvised dry, improvised wet, improvised dry followed by interim or improvised wet followed by interim. Remaining simulant on the skin was quantified using gas chromatography tandem mass spectrometry for MeS analysis and UV imaging for fluorophore detection. Additionally, urine samples were collected for 8 hours post application to analyse MeS levels.

Results: Significantly less simulant was recovered from the skin post decontamination compared with no decontamination. There were no differences in the total simulant recovered across all decontamination conditions. However, significantly more simulant was recovered from the shoulder compared with the arm and leg. Variation in simulant recovery from different application areas was significantly higher in improvised-only conditions than in combined conditions. Decontamination did not affect the amount of MeS excreted in urine over 8 hours.

Conclusion: This research supports current practice of starting decontamination as soon as possible after chemical exposure and highlights the importance of implementing interim decontamination following improvised decontamination.

Background: Patients with end-of-life care (EoLC) needs present to the emergency departments (ED) frequently and at times, it can be difficult to provide a high standard of care. Within the Irish setting, there is limited literature on the provision of EoLC in EDs and this study, therefore, aimed to evaluate the perceptions of emergency medicine (EM) clinicians regarding the provision of EoLC in EDs in Ireland.

Methods: The End-of-Life Care in Emergency Department Study was a cross-sectional electronic survey study of EM doctors working across 23 of the 29 EDs in the Ireland. This study was conducted through the Irish Trainee Emergency Research Network over a 6-week period from 27 September 2021 to 8 November 2021. Analysis of the survey domains regarding knowledge and attitude has been published previously by the present authors, with this current analysis focusing on communication, education and resources for the provision of EoLC in EDs. Descriptive data on outcomes are reported with additional subgroup analysis according to years of experience in EM.

Results: Of the 694 potential respondents, 311 (44.8%) had fully completed surveys. The majority (62% n=193) were between 25 and 35 years of age with 60% (n=186) having <5 years' experience in EM; 58% (n=180) were men. Experienced respondents (>10 years' experience) were more likely to agree that they were comfortable discussing EoL with patients and families than those with <5 years' experience (80% vs 32%) (p<0.001). Questions on ED infrastructure revealed that just 23.5% agreed that appropriate rooms are allocated for EoL patients, with just 11.6% agreeing that the physical environment is conducive to the provision of EoLC.

Conclusion: EM clinicians agree that they are comfortable breaking bad news and discussing EoLC with patients and families, but disagree that adequate resources and infrastructure are in place to provide a high standard of EoLC in Irish EDs. Challenges exist centred on training and infrastructure and addressing these may lead to enhanced EoLC in the future.

Introduction: Emergency doctors routinely face uncertainty-they work with limited patient information, under tight time constraints and receive minimal post-discharge feedback. While higher uncertainty tolerance (UT) among staff is linked with reduced resource use and improved well-being in various specialties, its impact in emergency settings is underexplored. We aimed to develop a UT measure and assess associations with doctor-related factors (eg, experience), patient outcomes (eg, reattendance) and resource use (eg, episode costs).

Methods: From May 2021 to February 2022, emergency doctors (specialty trainee 3 and above) from five Yorkshire (UK) departments completed an online questionnaire. This included a novel UT measure-an adapted Physicians' Reaction to Uncertainty scale collaboratively modified within our team according to Hillen et al's (2017) UT model. The questionnaire also included well-being-related measures (eg, Brief Resilience Scale) and assessed factors like doctors' seniority. Patient encounters involving prespecified 'uncertainty-inducing' problems (eg, headache) were analysed. Multilevel regression explored associations between doctor-level factors, resource use and patient outcomes.

Results: 39 doctors were matched with 384 patients. The UT measure demonstrated high reliability (Cronbach's α=0.92) and higher UT was significantly associated with better psychological well-being including greater resilience (Pearson's r=0.56; 95% CI=0.30 to 0.74) and lower burnout (eg, Cohen's d=-2.98; -4.62 to -1.33; mean UT difference for 'no' vs 'moderate/high' burnout). UT was not significantly associated with resource use (eg, episode costs: β=-0.07; -0.32 to 0.18) or patient outcomes including 30-day readmission (eg, OR=0.82; 0.28 to 2.35).

Conclusions: We developed a reliable UT measure for emergency medicine. While higher UT was linked to doctor well-being, its impact on resource use and patient outcomes remains unclear. Further measure validation and additional research including intervention trials are necessary to confirm these findings and explore the implications of UT in emergency practice.