Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine最新文献

Purpose: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is an inherited blood disorder with a natural course punctuated by acute complications including painful vaso-occlusive episodes. The objectives were: (1) to determine what proportion of patients with SCD receive opioids within 30 min of triage as recommended by the current clinical recommendations and quality standard; and (2) to identify facilitators to timely opioid administration for patients with SCD.

Methods: This was a retrospective observational study. The primary outcome was the proportion of visits in which patients received opioid analgesia within 30 min of triage. Secondary outcomes were time in minutes from triage to any analgesic administration and time from triage to first opioid administration. Patient demographics and ED encounter characteristics were included as potential associated variables.

Results: There were 236 patient visits (by 103 patients) that met inclusion criteria. Patients received opioid analgesia within 30 min of triage in only 5.2% of visits. The median time from triage to opioid analgesia was 80 (IQR = 49.0, 125.5) minutes. Using an order set and receiving opioid analgesia prior to physician assessment were both associated with shorter times to opioid analgesia.

Conclusion: Existing recommendations are that opioid analgesia be provided within 30 min of triage for patients with SCD and VOEs. Our data show this target is rarely met, even in a department in which SCD VOEs are a common presenting concern. The association of earlier opioid analgesia with order set use and administration prior to physician assessment highlights potential avenues for improving time to analgesia.

Objectives: Prompt diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) using a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) is a critical task for emergency physicians. While computerized algorithms for ECG interpretation are limited in their accuracy, machine learning (ML) models have shown promise in several areas of clinical medicine. We performed a systematic review to compare the performance of ML-based ECG analysis to clinician or non-ML computerized ECG interpretation in the diagnosis of ACS for emergency department (ED) or prehospital patients.

Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, and CINAHL databases from inception to May 18, 2022. We included studies that compared ML algorithms to either clinicians or non-ML based software in their ability to diagnose ACS using only a 12-lead ECG, in adult patients experiencing chest pain or symptoms concerning for ACS in the ED or prehospital setting. We used QUADAS-2 for risk of bias assessment. Prospero registration CRD42021264765.

Results: Our search yielded 1062 abstracts. 10 studies met inclusion criteria. Five model types were tested, including neural networks, random forest, and gradient boosting. In five studies with complete performance data, ML models were more sensitive but less specific (sensitivity range 0.59-0.98, specificity range 0.44-0.95) than clinicians (sensitivity range 0.22-0.93, specificity range 0.63-0.98) in diagnosing ACS. In four studies that reported it, ML models had better discrimination (area under ROC curve range 0.79-0.98) than clinicians (area under ROC curve 0.67-0.78). Heterogeneity in both methodology and reporting methods precluded a meta-analysis. Several studies had high risk of bias due to patient selection, lack of external validation, and unreliable reference standards for ACS diagnosis.

Conclusions: ML models have overall higher discrimination and sensitivity but lower specificity than clinicians and non-ML software in ECG interpretation for the diagnosis of ACS. ML-based ECG interpretation could potentially serve a role as a "safety net", alerting emergency care providers to a missed acute MI when it has not been diagnosed. More rigorous primary research is needed to definitively demonstrate the ability of ML to outperform clinicians at ECG interpretation.

Objectives: Many emergency department (ED) patients with opioid use disorder are candidates for home buprenorphine/naloxone initiation with to-go packs. We studied patient opinions and acceptance of buprenorphine/naloxone to-go packs, and factors associated with their acceptance.

Methods: We identified patients at two urban EDs in British Columbia who met opioid use disorder criteria, were not presently on opioid agonist therapy and not in active withdrawal. We offered patients buprenorphine/naloxone to-go as standard of care and then administered a survey to record buprenorphine/naloxone to-go acceptance, the primary outcome. Survey domains included current substance use, prior experience with opioid agonist therapy, and buprenorphine/naloxone related opinions. Patient factors were examined for association with buprenorphine/naloxone to-go acceptance.

Results: Of the 89 patients enrolled, median age was 33 years, 27% were female, 67.4% had previously taken buprenorphine/naloxone, and 19.1% had never taken opioid agonist therapy. Overall, 78.7% believed that EDs should dispense buprenorphine/naloxone to-go packs. Thirty-eight (42.7%) patients accepted buprenorphine/naloxone to-go. Buprenorphine/naloxone to-go acceptance was associated with lack of prior opioid agonist therapy, less than 10 years of opioid use and no injection drug use. Reasons to accept included initiating treatment while in withdrawal; reasons to reject included prior unsatisfactory buprenorphine/naloxone experience and interest in other treatments.

Conclusion: Although less than half of our study population accepted buprenorphine/naloxone to-go when offered, most thought this intervention was beneficial. In isolation, ED buprenorphine/naloxone to-go will not meet the needs of all patients with opioid use disorder. Clinicians and policy makers should consider buprenorphine/naloxone to-go as a low-barrier option for opioid use disorder treatment from the ED when integrated with robust addiction care services.

Background: We developed the Canadian Syncope Pathway (CSP) based on the Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) to aid emergency department (ED) syncope management. This pilot implementation study assessed patient inclusion, length of transition period, as well as process measures (engagement, reach, adoption, and fidelity) to prepare for multicenter implementation.

Methods: A non-randomized stepped wedge trial at two hospitals was conducted over a 7-month period. After 2-3 months in the control condition, the hospitals crossed over in a stepwise fashion to the intervention condition. Study participants were ED and non-ED physicians, or their delegates, and patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with syncope. We aimed to analyze patient characteristics, ED management including disposition decision, and CSRS recommendations application for all eligible patients during the intervention period. Our targets were 95% inclusion rate, 70% adoption (proportion of physicians who applied the pathway), 60% reach (intervention applied to eligible patients) and 70% fidelity (appropriate recommendations application) for all eligible patients. Clinical Trials registration NCT04790058.

Results: 1002 eligible patients (mean age 56.6 years; 51.0% males) were included: 349 patients during the control and 653 patients during the intervention period. Physician engagement varied from 39.7% to 97.1% for presentation at meetings. Process measures for the first month and the end of the intervention were: adoption 70.7% (58/82) and 84.4% (103/122), reach 67.5% (108/160) and 55.0% (359/653), fidelity among patients with physician data form completion 86.3% (88/102) and 88.3% (294/333), versus fidelity among all eligible patients 83.8% (134/160) and 83.3% (544/653) respectively with no significant differences in fidelity at one month and the end of the intervention period.

Conclusion: In this pilot study, we achieved all prespecified benchmarks for proceeding to the multicenter CSP implementation except reach. Our results indicate a 1-month transition period will be adequate though regular reminders will be needed during full-scale implementation.

Objectives: The Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario launched Canada's first virtual pediatric emergency department (ED) from May 2020 through November 2021 to deliver accessible care during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this study was to (i) conduct a cost analysis of the virtual pediatric ED, and (ii) compare the virtual costs to in-person ED costs to inform future resource allocation decisions.

Methods: We calculated costs from a health system perspective in 2021 Canadian dollars. Using a decision tree model, we compared expected costs with and without the virtual pediatric ED, and calculated overall and per patient cost savings of implementing the virtual ED.

Results: The virtual ED provided care to 7394 patients. In the base case, virtual care saved $890,000 ($120 per patient). One-way sensitivity analyses suggest overall cost savings were most sensitive to the proportion of virtual care patients who would have received in-person care had the virtual option not been available (range $300,000-$1,700,000), followed by ED overhead costs (range $640,000-$1,140,000). Multivariate sensitivity analyses demonstrated robust cost savings of $920,000 (95% CI 850,000-990,000) in a scenario using billing codes to calculate costs, and savings of $1,040,000 (95% CI 960,000-1,120,000) if physician salaries were used instead.

Conclusions: These findings suggest the virtual pediatric ED reduced costs per patient. Virtual care may represent a financially valuable pediatric emergency department service.

Background: Patients with chronic pain account for 12-20% of total emergency department (ED) and was the primary presenting concern among 37% of patients who visited the ED > 12 times per year. Despite this, emergency physicians receive little focused training managing these patients, and there is a paucity of effective referral pathways from EDs, despite strong evidence that chronic pain is best treated longitudinally in multidisciplinary clinics. This study sought to explore the practices, perspectives, and recommendations of current Canadians emergency physicians in better serving the chronic pain patient (CPP) population in the ED.

Methods: An electronic cross-sectional survey was administered to members of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP), consisting of 16 multiple choice and numerical response questions. Responses were summarized descriptively as percentages and as the median and inter-quartile range (IQR) for quantitative variables.

Results: The study was completed by 169/1635 respondents for a response rate of 10%. The most common presentations respondents saw were neuropathic pain and centrally mediated disorders (23% each) and low back pain (19%). 86% of respondents felt that chronic pain patients did not get appropriate referrals from the ED, and 70% of respondents were unaware of where they could even refer chronic pain patients from the ED. 96% of respondents felt that their ED did not have an effective referral pathway for chronic pain patients. Rapid access clinics for common conditions, reduced pain clinic wait times, and clear ED referral pathways were the commonest recommendations by respondents.

Conclusion: There is a clear need to increase the accessibility to outpatient pain medicine clinics for chronic pain patients presenting to the ED. ED and pain medicine providers must collaborate to establish mutually beneficial referral pathways from EDs, and to advocate for increased funding for rapid access outpatient pain clinics.