Western Journal of Emergency Medicine最新文献

Introduction: Intra-arrest transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) have been introduced in adult patients with cardiac arrest (CA). Whether the diagnostic performance of TTE or TEE is superior during resuscitation is unclear. We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines.

Methods: We searched databases from PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar and evaluated articles with intra-arrest TTE and TEE in adult patients with non-traumatic CA. Two authors independently screened and selected articles for inclusion; they then dual-extracted study characteristics and target conditions (pericardial effusion, aortic dissection, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, hypovolemia, left ventricular dysfunction, and sonographic cardiac activity). We performed quality assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Version 2 criteria.

Results: A total of 27 studies were included: 14 studies with 2,145 patients assessed TTE; and 16 with 556 patients assessed TEE. A high risk of bias or applicability concerns in at least one domain was present in 20 studies (74%). Both TTE and TEE found positive findings in nearly one-half of the patients. The etiology of CA was identified in 13% (271/2,145), and intervention was performed in 38% (102/271) of patients in the TTE group. In patients who received TEE, the etiology was identified in 43% (239/556), and intervention was performed in 28% (68/239). In the TEE group, a higher incidence regarding the etiology of CA was observed, particularly for those with aortic dissection. However, the outcome of those with aortic dissection in the TEE group was poor.

Conclusion: While TEE could identify more causes of CA than TTE, sonographic cardiac activity was reported much more in the TTE group. The impact of TTE and TEE on the return of spontaneous circulation and further survival was still inconclusive in the current dataset.

Background: Simulation-based medical education has been used in medical training for decades. Rapid cycle deliberate practice (RCDP) is a novel simulation strategy that uses iterative practice and feedback to achieve skill mastery. To date, there has been minimal evaluation of RCDP vs standard immersive simulation (IS) for the teaching of cardiopulmonary resuscitation to graduate medical education (GME) learners. Our primary objective was to compare the time to performance of Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) actions between trainees who completed RCDP vs IS.

Methods: This study was a prospective, randomized, controlled curriculum evaluation. A total of 55 postgraduate year-1 internal medicine and emergency medicine residents participated in the study. Residents were randomized to instruction by RCDP (28) or IS (27). Stress and ability were self-assessed before and after training using an anonymous survey that incorporated five-point Likert-type questions. We measured and compared times to initiate critical ACLS actions between the two groups during a subsequent IS.

Results: Prior learner experience between RCDP and IS groups was similar. Times to completion of the first pulse check, chest compression initiation, backboard placement, pad placement, initial rhythm analysis, first defibrillation, epinephrine administration, and antiarrhythmic administration were similar between RCDP and IS groups. However, RCDP groups took less time to complete the pulse check between compression cycles (6.2 vs 14.2 seconds, P = 0.01). Following training, learners in the RCDP and IS groups scored their ability to lead and their levels of anticipated stress similarly (3.43 vs 3.30, (P = 0.77), 2.43 vs. 2.41, P = 0.98, respectively). However, RCDP groups rated their ability to participate in resuscitation more highly (4.50 vs 3.96, P = 0.01). The RCDP groups also reported their realized stress of participating in the event as lower than that of the IS groups (2.36 vs 2.85, P = 0.01).

Conclusion: Rapid cycle deliberate practice learners demonstrated a shorter pulse check duration, reported lower stress levels associated with their experience, and rated their ability to participate in ACLS care more highly than their IS-trained peers. Our results support further investigation of RCDP in other simulation settings.

Background: Hospice and palliative medicine (HPM) is a board-certified subspecialty within emergency medicine (EM), but prior studies have shown that EM residents do not receive sufficient training in HPM. Experts in HPM-EM created a consensus list of competencies for HPM training in EM residency. We evaluated how the HPM competencies integrate within the American Board of Emergency Medicine Milestones, which include the Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine (EM Model) and the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA) list.

Methods: Three emergency physicians independently mapped the HPM-EM competencies onto the 2019 EM Model items and the 2021 KSAs. Discrepancies were resolved by a fourth independent reviewer, and the final mapping was reviewed by all team members.

Results: The EM Model included 78% (18/23) of the HPM competencies as a direct match, and we identified recommended areas for incorporating the other five. The KSAs included 43% (10/23). Most HPM competencies included in the KSAs mapped onto at least one level B (minimal necessary for competency) KSA. Three HPM competencies were not clearly included in the EM Model or in the KSAs (treating end-of-life symptoms, caring for the imminently dying, and caring for patients under hospice care).

Conclusion: The majority of HPM-EM competencies are included in the current EM Model and KSAs and correspond to knowledge needed to be competent in EM. Programs relying on the EM Milestones to plan their curriculums may miss training in symptom management and care for patients at the end of life or who are on hospice.

Introduction: Older adults often have multiple comorbidities; therefore, they are at high risk for adverse events after discharge. The 4Ms framework-what matters, medications, mentation, mobility-has been used in acute and ambulatory care settings to identify risk factors for adverse events in older adults, although it has not been used in the emergency department (ED). We aimed to determine whether 1) use of the 4Ms worksheet would help emergency clinicians understand older adult patients' goals of care and 2) use of the worksheet was feasible in the ED.

Methods: We conducted a qualitative, descriptive study among patients aged ≥60 years and emergency clinicians from January-June 2022. Patients were asked to fill out a 4Ms worksheet; following this, semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients and clinicians separately. We analysed data to create codes, which were divided into categories and sub-categories.

Results: A total of 20 older patients and 19 emergency clinicians were interviewed. We identified two categories based on our aims: understanding patient goals of care (sub-categories: clinician/ patient concordance; understanding underlying goals of care; underlying goals of care discrepancy) and use of 4Ms Worksheet (sub-categories: worksheet to discussion discrepancy; challenges using worksheet; challenge completing worksheet before discharge). Rates of concordance between patient and clinician on main concern/goal of care and underlying goals of care were 82.4% and 15.4%, respectively.

Conclusion: We found that most patients and emergency clinicians agreed on the main goal of care, although clinicians often failed to elicit patients' underlying goal(s) of care. Additionally, many patients preferred to have the interviewer fill out the worksheet for them. There was often discrepancy between what was written and what was discussed with the interviewer. More research is needed to determine the best way to integrate the 4Ms framework within emergency care.

Introduction: Emergency medicine (EM) is one of few specialties with variable training lengths. Hiring a three-year graduate to continue fellowship training in a department that supports a four-year residency program can lead to conflicts around resident supervision. We sought to understand hiring and clinical supervision, or staffing, patterns of non-Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) fellowships hosted at institutions supporting four-year residency programs.

Methods: We performed a web-based, cross-sectional survey of non-ACGME fellowship directors (FD) hosted at institutions supporting four-year EM residency programs. We calculated descriptive statistics. Our primary outcome was the proportion of programs with four-year EM residencies that hire non-ACGME fellows graduating from three-year EM residencies.

Results: Of 119 eligible FDs, 88 (74%) completed the survey. Seventy FDs (80%) indicated that they hire graduates of three-year residencies. Fifty-six (80%) indicated that three-year graduates supervise residents. Most FDs (74%) indicated no additional requirements exist to supervise residents outside of being hired as faculty. The FDs cited department policy, concerns about quality and length of training, and resident complaints as reasons for not hiring three-year graduates. A majority (10/18, 56%) noted that not hiring fellows from three-year programs negatively impacts recruitment and gives them access to a smaller applicant pool.

Conclusion: Most non-ACGME fellowships at institutions with four-year EM programs recruit three-year graduates and allow them to supervise residents. This survey provides programs information on how comparable fellowships recruit and staff their departments, which may inform policies that fit the needs of their learners, the fellowship, and the department.

Introduction: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) performed by emergency physicians (EP) has emerged as an effective alternative to radiology department ultrasounds for the diagnosis of lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Systematic reviews suggested good sensitivity and specificity overall for EP-performed POCUS for DVT diagnosis, yet high levels of heterogeneity were reported.

Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to provide the most up-to-date estimates of the accuracy of EP-performed POCUS for diagnosis of DVT and to explore potential correlations with test performance. We performed systematic searches in MEDLINE and Embase for original, primary data articles from January 2012-June 2021 comparing the efficacy of POCUS performed by EPs to the local standard. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 for individual articles are reported. We obtained summary measures of sensitivity, specificity, and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) using bivariate mixed-effects regression models. We performed meta-regression, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses as planned in the protocol CRD42021268799 submitted to PROSPERO.

Results: Fifteen publications fit the inclusion criteria, totaling 2,511 examinations. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90% (95% CI 82%-95%) and 95% (CI 91%-97%), respectively. Subgroup analyses by EP experience found significantly better accuracy for exams performed by EP specialists (93%, CI 88%-97%) vs trainees (77%, CI 60%-94%). Specificity for EP specialists (97%, CI 94%-99%) was higher than for trainees (87%, CI 76%-99%, P = 0.01). Three-point compression ultrasound (CUS) was more sensitive than two-point CUS but was only statistically significant when limited to EP specialists (92% vs 88%, P = 0.07, and 95% vs 88%, P = 0.02, respectively).

Conclusion: Point-of-care ultrasound performed by emergency physicians is sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of suspected DVT when performed by trained attending EPs. Three-point compression ultrasound examination may be more sensitive than two-point CUS.

Introduction: Numerous studies have demonstrated the accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). Portable, handheld devices have expanded the clinical scope of POCUS at a fraction of the cost of traditional, cart-based models. There is a paucity of data assessing the diagnostic accuracy of portable devices. Our objective in this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of a portable device with a cart-based model.

Methods: This was an institutional review board-approved, observational, prospective, randomized clinical trial (NCT05196776) of a convenience sample of adult patients who presented to a university-based health system. Patients who required a cardiac, lung, renal, aorta, or biliary POCUS were randomized to a portable device or to a cart-based model. We hypothesized that the cart-based model would have a 90% diagnostic accuracy vs 70% for the handheld device. To detect a 20% difference, the sample size was calculated to be 98, with 49 patients randomized to each arm. We used standard 2x2 tables to calculate test characteristics with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results: A total of 110 patients were enrolled, with 56 patients randomized to the cart-based model and 54 to the handheld device. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of the cart-based vs handheld were 77.8% (40-97.2) vs 92.9% (66.1-99.8), 91.5% (79.6-97.6) vs 92.3% (79.1-98.4%), and 89.3% (78.1-96) vs 92.5% (81.8-97.9), respectively.

Conclusion: The diagnostic accuracy of a portable, handheld device is similar to that of a cart-based model.