Academic Emergency Medicine最新文献

Objectives: Approximately 10% of patients with syncope have serious or life-threatening causes that may not be apparent during the initial emergency department (ED) assessment. Consequently, researchers have developed clinical decision rules (CDRs) to predict adverse outcomes and risk stratify ED syncope patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) aims to cohere and synthesize the best current evidence regarding the methodological quality and predictive accuracy of CDRs for developing an evidence-based ED syncope management guideline.

Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search according to the patient-intervention-control-outcome question: In patients 16 years of age or older who present to the ED with syncope for whom no underlying serious/life-threatening condition was found during the index ED visit (population), are risk stratification tools (intervention), better than unstructured clinical judgment (i.e., usual care; comparison), for providing accurate prognosis and aiding disposition decision for outcomes within 30 days (outcome)? Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality. We performed statistical analysis using Meta-DiSc. We used GRADEPro GDT software to determine the certainty of the evidence and create a summary of the findings (SoF) tables.

Results: Of 2047 publications obtained through the search strategy, 31 comprising 13 CDRs met the inclusion criteria. There were 13 derivation studies (17,578 participants) and 24 validation studies (14,845 participants). Only three CDRs were validated in more than two studies. The San Francisco Syncope Rule (SFSR) was validated in 12 studies: positive likelihood ratio (LR+) 1.15-4.70 and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) 0.03-0.64. The Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) was validated in five studies: LR+ 1.15-2.58 and LR- 0.05-0.50. The Osservatorio Epidemiologico sulla Sincope nel Lazio (OESIL) risk score was validated in five studies: LR+ 1.16-3.32 and LR- 0.14-0.46.

Conclusions: Most CDRs for ED adult syncope management have low-quality evidence for routine clinical practice use. Only three CDRs (SFSR, CSRS, OESIL) are validated by more than two studies, with significant overlap in operating characteristics.

Background: Disparities in health outcomes, including increased chronic disease prevalence and decreased life expectancy for Indigenous people, have been shown across settings affected by white settler colonialism including Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. Emergency departments (EDs) represent a unique setting in which urgent patient need and provider strain interact to amplify inequities within society. The aim of this scoping review was to map the ED-based interventions aimed at improving equity in care for Indigenous patients in EDs.

Methods: This scoping review was conducted using the procedures outlined by Arksey and O'Malley and guidance on conducting scoping reviews from the Joanna Briggs Institute. A systematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and EMBASE was conducted.

Results: A total of 3636 articles were screened by title and abstract, of which 32 were screened in full-text review and nine articles describing seven interventions were included in this review. Three intervention approaches were identified: the introduction of novel clinical roles, implementation of chronic disease screening programs in EDs, and systems/organizational-level interventions.

Conclusions: Relatively few interventions for improving equity in care were identified. We found that a minority of interventions are aimed at creating organizational-level change and suggest that future interventions could benefit from targeting system-level changes as opposed to or in addition to incorporating new roles in EDs.

Background: We previously implemented the SQuID protocol (subcutaneous insulin in diabetic ketoacidosis [DKA]) demonstrating safe, effective treatment of low- to moderate-severity DKA in a non-intensive care unit setting. Since success and sustainability of interventions rely on staff buy-in, we assessed acceptability of SQuID among emergency department (ED) and inpatient clinicians.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study in an urban academic hospital (March 2023-November 2023), surveying ED nurses (RNs) and physicians (MDs) and floor RNs and MDs treating patients on SQuID via emailed survey links. Clinicians could only take the survey once. We used Sekhon's Theoretical Framework of Acceptability, validated for staff acceptability of a new intervention, assessing eight domains with 5-point Likert responses. Clinicians were asked about prior experience with SQuID, and we assessed ED MD and RN preference (SQuID vs. intravenous [IV] insulin). Surveys included free-text boxes for comments. We present descriptive statistics including proportions with 95% confidence interval and medians with interquartile ranges (IQRs) and conducted thematic analysis of free-text comments.

Results: Our overall response rate (107/133) was 80% (34/42 ED RNs, 13/16 floor RNs, 47/57 ED MDs, 13/17 floor MDs), with first-time users of SQuID ranging from 7.7% (hospitalist MDs) to 35.3% (ED RNs) of participants. ED clinicians preferred SQuID over IV insulin (67% vs. 12%, 21% no preference). Acceptability was high across all domains and clinician types (median 4, IQR 4-5). Overall percentage of positive responses (4s and 5s) across domains was 92% (ED RNs [89%], floor RNs [89%], ED MDs [97%], floor MDs [87%]). We identified several themes among participant comments.

Conclusions: Acceptability was high across clinician types; 65% of ED clinicians preferred SQuID to IV insulin. Clinicians liked SQuID (affective attitude), found it easy to use (burden), were confident in its use (self-efficacy), felt that it improved outcomes (perceived effectiveness), found that it was fair to patients (ethicality), found that it made sense (intervention coherence), and found that it did not interfere with other activities (opportunity cost).

Objectives: Abdominal pain is the most common reason for visit (RFV) to the emergency department (ED) for adults, yet no standardized diagnostic pathway exists for abdominal pain. Optimal management is age-specific; symptoms, diagnoses, and prognoses differ between young and old adults. Availability and knowledge of the effectiveness of various imaging modalities have also changed over time. We compared diagnostic imaging rates for younger versus older adults to identify practice patterns of abdominal imaging across age groups over time.

Methods: We analyzed weighted, nationally representative data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey 2007-2019 for adult ED visits with a primary RFV of abdominal pain. We included 23,364 sampled visits, representing 123 million visits.

Results: From 2007 to 2019, total visits increased for ages 18-45 (p < 0.001), 46-64 (p < 0.001), and 65+ (p = 0.032). The percentage of visits with primary RFV of abdominal pain increased from 9.4% to 11.6% for ages 18-45, 7.8%-9.0% for ages 46-64, and 6.0%-6.5% for 65+. Computed tomography (CT) scan rates increased over time from 26.2% of all patients receiving a CT scan to 42.6%. Relative percentage change in abdominal CT scans was greatest for older adults, with a 30.3% increase, compared to 24.0% for middle-aged adults and 15.0% for young adults. Test positivity, defined as receiving an emergency general surgical diagnosis after CT or ultrasound, increased from 17.2% in 2007 to 22.9% in 2019 (p < 0.01). Of the older adults with abdominal pain in 2019, 13% received an X-ray only, which is neither sensitive nor specific for acute pathology in older adults.

Conclusions: Despite more abdominal pain ED visits and increased imaging rates per visit, test positivity continues to rise. Our findings do not support claims that CT and ultrasound are being used less appropriately over time, but demonstrate widespread use of X-rays, which are potentially ineffective for abdominal pain.

Background: Pain management is a critical part of treatment in patients with chest trauma. Opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have been the most commonly used medications. However, their side effects have drawn attention to other medications. In this study, we aimed to assess the effect of the analgesic dose of ketamine in patients with chest trauma in comparison to ketorolac.

Methods: A randomized, double-blind clinical trial was conducted in three hospitals. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups: 45 in the ketorolac group (30 mg intravenous [IV] and 45 in the ketamine group [0.25 mg/kg IV]). Pain was rated via numeric rating scale (NRS) before and 30 and 60 min after the drug injection. Morphine was used as the rescue medication. Furthermore, the adverse events of the two study regimens were rated.

Results: Pain was more significantly relieved in the ketamine group, 30 and 60 min after drug administration, compared to ketorolac (median [IQR] 95% CI 30-min NRS 3.0 [1.0] 2.8-3.5 vs. 5.0 [4.5] 4.2-5.8, p = 0.006; and 60-min NRS 3.0 [2.0] 2.7-3.7 vs. 5.6 [1.7] 4.7-6.4, p < 0.001), respectively. Among patients with a chest tube, pain was more significantly controlled in the ketamine group (p < 0.001). Also, patients in the ketamine group needed less rescue pain medications compared to the ketorolac group although they reported more frequent nausea.

Conclusion: Ketamine can be an effective analgesic in patients with chest trauma in acute settings with or without rib fracture.

Background: Sepsis remains the leading cause of in-hospital death and one of the costliest inpatient conditions in the United States, while treatment delays worsen outcomes. We sought to determine factors and outcomes associated with a missed emergency physician (EP) diagnosis of sepsis.

Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a prospective single-center observational cohort of undifferentiated, critically ill medical patients (September 2020-May 2022). EP gestalt of suspicion for sepsis was measured using a visual analog scale (VAS; 0%-100%) at 15 and 60 min post-patient arrival. The primary outcome was an explicit hospital discharge diagnosis of sepsis that was present on arrival. We calculated test characteristics for clinically relevant subgroups and examined factors associated with initial and persistent missed diagnoses. Associations with process (antibiotics) and clinical (mortality) outcomes were assessed after adjusting for severity.

Results: Among 2484 eligible patients, 275 (11%) met the primary outcome. A VAS score of ≥50 (more likely than not of being septic) at 15 min demonstrated sensitivity 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78-0.87) and specificity 0.85 (95% CI 0.83-0.86). Older age, hypoxia, hypotension, renal insufficiency, leukocytosis, and both high and low temperature were significantly associated with lower accuracy due to reduced specificity, but maintained sensitivity. Of 48 (17%) and 23 (8%) missed cases at 15 and 60 min, elevated lactate, leukocytosis, bandemia, and positive urinalysis were more common in the missed sepsis compared to nonsepsis cases. Missed diagnoses were associated with median (interquartile range) delay of 48 (27-64) min in antibiotic administration but were not independently associated with inpatient mortality as risk ratios remained close to 1 across VAS scores.

Conclusions: This prospective single-academic center study identified patient subgroups at risk of impaired diagnostic accuracy of sepsis, with clinicians often overdiagnosing rather than underdiagnosing these groups. Prompt abnormal laboratory test results can "rescue" initial missed diagnoses, serving as potential clinician- and systems-level intervention points to reduce missed diagnoses. Missed diagnoses delayed antibiotics, but not mortality after controlling for severity of illness.