Western Journal of Emergency Medicine最新文献

Introduction: Clinician burnout represents a significant occupational hazard among physicians, with a notably high prevalence among emergency physicians. The Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index (PFI) was developed to comprehensively assess various aspects of doctors' work experiences, including professional fulfillment. In this study we aimed to validate the Turkish version of the PFI (T-PFI), a 16-item instrument designed to measure physicians' professional fulfillment and burnout.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we validated the T-PFI in two phases. The initial phase involved translating and culturally adapting the original PFI into Turkish. We evaluated the content validity of the translated version using item and scale content validity indices (I-CVI and S-CVI, respectively). The validated T-PFI was then distributed among a broad cohort of emergency physicians via an online survey to further assess its reliability and validity. The assessment tools included Cronbach α, confirmatory factor analysis, and content validity indices.

Results: Of 1,434 physicians who were sent the survey, 425 fully completed it (29.6%). There was an almost equal distribution of 215 females and 210 males. Only 9.6% of the participants reported high levels of professional fulfillment, whereas a significant majority (79.1%) were susceptible to burnout. The Cronbach α values for the professional fulfillment and overall burnout scales were 0.87 and 0.90, respectively. The content validity was confirmed by I-CVI values exceeding 0.80 and an S-CVI/average relevance of 0.92. The confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated an acceptable model fit after adjustments.

Conclusion: The T-PFI is a reliable and valid tool for assessing professional fulfillment and burnout among emergency physicians in Turkey. Effective interventions to mitigate burnout are essential to improve physician well-being in Turkish healthcare settings.

Increased intracranial pressure (ICP) is encountered in numerous traumatic and non-traumatic medical situations, and it requires immediate recognition and attention. Clinically, ICP typically presents with a headache that is most severe in the morning, aggravated by Valsalva-like maneuvers, and associated with nausea or vomiting. Papilledema is a well-recognized sign of increased ICP; however, emergency physicians often find it difficult to visualize the optic disc using ophthalmoscopy or to accurately interpret digital fundus photographs when using a non-mydriatic retinal camera. Emergency ultrasound can evaluate the optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) and optic disc elevation to determine whether increased ICP is present, however, the studies have been small with different definitions and measurements of the ONSD. The ONSD threshold values for increased ICP have been reported anywhere from 4.8 to 6.3 millimeters. Neuroimaging is the next step in the evaluation of patients with papilledema or high clinical suspicion of increased ICP, as it can identify most structural causes or typical radiological patterns of increased ICP. Neuroradiographic signs of increased ICP can be helpful in suggesting idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH), especially when papilledema is absent. Patients with papilledema and normal neuroimaging may undergo lumbar puncture as part of their clinical workup. The cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) opening pressure remains one of the most important investigations to establish the diagnosis of IIH. A CSF evaluation is also required to exclude other etiologies of elevated ICP such as infectious, inflammatory, and neoplastic meningitis. Invasive ICP measurement remains the standard to measure and monitor this condition.

Child maltreatment remains a concerning source of morbidity and mortality in the United States, where more than 600,000 children are victims of abuse each year, with well-described, long-term consequences for physical and mental health. However, the US child welfare system is characterized by systemic racism and inequity. Black and Native American children are more likely to be evaluated and reported for suspected abuse despite evidence that race does not independently change their risk of being abused. Once reported to child protective services (CPS), these children are more likely to be removed from their homes and less likely to be reunited with their families than White children. Much of the inequity in this system starts at the front door, where a growing body of research demonstrates that bias regularly infiltrates decision-making in the initial clinical evaluation and management of suspected abuse. Minority children presenting to emergency departments (ED) are more likely to receive diagnostic testing and are more likely to be referred to CPS. In this editorial, we argue for the application of an equity lens to child protection in the ED. We discuss how emergency physicians can balance efforts to protect children from abuse with the imperative to protect children and families from the harms of an inequitable child welfare system. Our discussion concludes with concrete recommendations for emergency clinicians to participate in active bias mitigation and thoughtfully navigate their responsibilities as mandated reporters.

Introduction: The workload of physicians increased due to the number of patients presenting with suspicion of coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) and the prolonged wait times in the emergency department during the COVID-19 pandemic. Signal peptide-CUB-EGF domain-containing protein 1 (SCUBE-1) is a protein present in platelets and endothelial cells; it is activated by inflammation from COVID-19 and may be associated with COVID-19's known thrombotic risk. We aimed to determine whether SCUBE-1 levels are diagnostically correlated in suspected COVID-19 patients, and whether SCUBE-1 correlated with severity of disease and, therefore, might be useful to guide hospitalization/discharge decisions.

Methods: The suspected COVID-19 patients cared for at tertiary healthcare institutions for one year between May 2021-May 2022 were examined in this study. The subjects were both suspected COVID-19 patients not ultimately found to have COVID-19 and those who were diagnosed with COVID-19. By modifying the disease severity scoring systems present in COVID-19 guidelines in 2021, the COVID-19-positive patient group was classified as mild, moderate, severe, and critical, and compared using the SCUBE-1 levels. Moreover, SCUBE-1 levels were compared between the COVID-19 positive group and the COVID-19 negative group.

Results: A total of 507 patients were considered for the present study. After excluding 175 patients for incomplete data and alternate comorbid organ failure. we report on 332 patients (65.5%). Of these 332 patients, 80 (24.0%) were COVID-19 negative, and 252 (76.0%) were COVID-19 positive. Of 252 (100%) patients diagnosed with COVID-19, 74 (29.4%) were classified as mild, 95 (37.7%) moderate, 45 (17.8%) severe, and 38 (15.1%) critical. The SCUBE-1 levels were statistically different between COVID-19 positive (8.48 ± 7.42 nanograms per milliliter [ng/mL]) and COVID-19 negative (1.86 ± 0.92 ng/mL) patients (P < 0.001). In the COVID-19 positive group, SCUBE-1 levels increased with disease severity (mild = 3.20 ± 1.65 ng/mL, moderate = 4.78 ± 2.26 ng/mL, severe = 13.68 ± 3.95 ng/mL, and critical = 21.87 ± 5.39 ng/mL) (P < 0.001). The initial SCUBE-1 levels of discharged patients were significantly lower than those requiring hospitalization (discharged = 2.89 ng/mL [0.55-8.60 ng/mL]; ward admitted = 7.13 ng/mL [1.38-21.29 ng/mL], and ICU admitted = 21.19 ng/mL [10.58-37.86 ng/mL]) (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: The SCUBE-1 levels were found to be differentiated between patients with and without COVID-19 and to be correlated with the severity of illness.

Introduction: Previous studies have shown that patients in the emergency department (ED) are frequently given incomplete discharge instructions that are written at least four grade levels above the recommended sixth-grade reading level, leading to poor understanding. Our aims in this study were to implement standardized discharge instructions containing six key components written at a more appropriate reading level for common emergency department (ED) diagnoses to improve patient understanding.

Methods: We conducted this study in a 20-bed ED at an urban Veteran's Administration hospital. Data was collected via in-person patient and clinician interviews. Patient interviews were conducted after patients received their discharge instructions. We compared patient responses to clinician responses and marked them as incorrect, partially correct, or correct with a score of 0, 0.5, or 1, respectively. The maximum possible score for each interview was six. Six key components of discharge instructions were asked about: diagnosis; new medications; at-home care; duration of illness; reasons to return; and follow-up. There were 25 patients in the pre-intervention group and 20 in the intervention group with the standardized set of instructions. We performed a Mann-Whitney U test on the total interview scores in the control and intervention groups and conducted a sub-analysis on the individual scores for each of the six key components.

Results: The patients in the intervention demonstrated a statistically significant increase in patient-clinician correlation when compared to the patients in the pre-intervention group overall (P < 0.05), and two of the six key components of the discharge instructions individually showed statistically significant increase in patient-clinician correlation when standardized discharge instructions were used.

Conclusion: Patients who received the standardized discharge instructions had improved understanding of their discharge instructions. Future opportunities extending off this pilot study include expanding the number of diagnoses for which standardized instructions are used and investigating patient-centered outcomes related to these instructions.

Introduction: Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) accelerated the need for virtual learning including telesimulation. Many emergency medicine (EM) programs halted in-person simulation and trialed telesimulation, but specifics on its utilization and plans for future use are unknown. Telesimulation has been defined as "a process by which telecommunication and simulation resources are utilized to provide education, training, and/or assessment to learners at an off-site location." Our objective in this study was to describe the patterns of telesimulation usage in EM residency programs during COVID-19-induced learning restrictions as well as its anticipated future utility.

Methods: We identified EM simulation leaders via the EMRA Match website, institutional websites, or personal contact with residency coordinators and directors, and invited them to participate by email. Participants completed a confidential, web-based survey consisting of multiple-choice items and one free-response question, developed by our study team with consideration of survey research best practices and Messick's validity framework. We collected data between January-February 2022. We calculated descriptive statistics for multiple-choice items and examined the free-response answers for common themes.

Results: We obtained contact information for simulation leaders at 139 EM residency programs. Survey response rate was 65% (91/139). During in-person restrictions, 62% (56/91) of programs used telesimulation. Assuming all restrictions lifted, 38% (34/90) of respondents planned to continue to use telesimulation, compared to 9% (8/91) using telesimulation before COVID-19. Most respondents planned to use telesimulation for medical knowledge (26/34, 76%) and communication/teamwork-focused cases (23/34, 68%). In response to the free-response question regarding experience with and plans for use, we identified three major themes: 1) telesimulation is a valuable alternative to in-person learning; 2) telesimulation is an option for learners unable to participate in person; and 3) telesimulation is challenging for procedural education.

Conclusion: Despite the relatively limited use of telesimulation in EM residencies prior to COVID-19, an increased number of programs have plans to continue incorporating telesimulation into their curricula. This plan for continued use opens opportunities for further innovation and scholarship within simulation education.

Introduction: Child abuse is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in children. The rate of missed child abuse in general emergency departments (ED), where 85% of children are evaluated, is higher than in pediatric EDs. We sought to evaluate the impact of an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded child-abuse clinical decision support system (CA-CDSS) in the identification and evaluation of child maltreatment in a network of EDs three years after implementation.

Methods: We anonymously surveyed all 196 ED attending physicians and advanced practice practitioners (APP) in the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center network. The survey evaluated practitioner awareness of, attitudes toward, and changes in clinical practice prompted by the CA-CDSS. We also assessed practitioner recognition and evaluation of sentinel injuries.

Results: Of the 71 practitioners (36%) who responded to the survey, 75% felt the tool raised child abuse awareness, and 72% had a face-to-face discussion with the child's nurse after receiving a CA-CDSS alert. Among APPs, 72% consulted with the attending physician after receiving an alert. Many practitioners were unaware of at least one function of the CA-CDSS; 38% did not know who completed the child abuse screen (CAS); 54% were unaware that they could view the results of the CAS in the EHR, and 69% did not recognize the clinical decision support dashboard icon. Slightly over 20% of respondents felt that the CA-CDSS limited autonomy; and 4.5% disagreed with the recommendations in the physical abuse order set, which reflects American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines. Greater than 90% of respondents correctly identified an intraoral injury and torso bruise in an infant as sentinel injuries requiring an evaluation for abuse.

Conclusion: A child-abuse clinical decision support system embedded in the electronic health record was associated with communication among practitioners and was overall perceived as improving child abuse awareness in our system. Practitioners correctly recognized injuries concerning for abuse. Barriers to improving identification and evaluation of abuse include gaps in knowledge about the CA-CDSS and the presence of practitioners who disagree with the AAP recommendations for physical abuse evaluation and/or felt that clinical decision support in general limited their clinical autonomy.

Background: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) improves the prognosis of in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). The six-factor RESCUE-IHCA score (resuscitation using ECPR during IHCA) was developed to predict outcomes of post-IHCA ECPR-treated adult patients. Our goal was to validate the score in an Asian medical center with a high volume and experience of ECPR performance and to compare the differences in patient characteristics between the current study and the original cohort in a 2022 observational study.

Method: For this single-center, retrospective cohort study we enrolled 324 ECPR-treated adult IHCA patients. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. We used the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) to externally validate the RESCUE-IHCA score. The calibration of the model was tested by the decile calibration plot as well as Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit with an associated P-value.

Results: Of the 324 participants, 231 (71%) died before hospital discharge. The discriminative performance of the RESCUE-IHCA score was comparable with the originally validated cohort, with an AUC of 0.63. A prolonged duration of cardiac arrest was associated with an increased risk of mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.03, P = .006). An initial rhythm of ventricular tachycardia (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04-0.51, P = .003), ventricular fibrillation (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03-0.46, P = .003), and palpable pulse (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07-0.92, P = 0.04) were associated with a reduced mortality risk compared to asystole or pulseless electrical activity. In contrast to the original study, age (P = 0.28), resuscitation timing (P = 0.14), disease category (P = 0.18), and pre-existing renal insufficiency (P = 0.12) were not associated with in-hospital death.

Conclusion: In external validation, the RESCUE-IHCA score exhibited performance comparable to its original validation within the single-center population. Further investigation on hospital experience, time-of-day effect, and specific disease categories is warranted to improve the selection criteria for ECPR candidates during IHCA.

Introduction: The United States lacks a national interfacility patient transfer coordination system. During the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many hospitals were overwhelmed and faced difficulties transferring sick patients, leading some states and cities to form transfer centers intended to assist sending facilities. In this study we aimed to explore clinician experiences with newly implemented transfer coordination centers.

Methods: This mixed-methods study used a brief national survey along with in-depth interviews. The American College of Emergency Physicians Emergency Medicine Practice Research Network (EMPRN) administered the national survey in March 2021. From September-December 2021, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with administrators and rural emergency clinicians in Arizona and New Mexico, two states that started transfer centers during COVID-19.

Results: Among 141 respondents (of 765, 18.4% response rate) to the national EMPRN survey, only 30% reported implementation or expansion of a transfer coordination center during COVID-19. Those with new transfer centers reported no change in difficulty of patient transfers during COVID-19 while those without had increased difficulty. The 17 qualitative interviews expanded upon this, revealing four major themes: 1) limited resources for facilitating transfers even before COVID-19; 2) increased number of and distance to transfer partners during the COVID-19 pandemic; 3) generally positive impacts of transfer centers on workflow, and 4) the potential for continued use of centers to facilitate transfers.

Conclusion: Transfer centers may have offset pandemic-related transfer challenges brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinicians who frequently need to transfer patients may particularly benefit from ongoing access to such transfer coordination services.