Academic Emergency Medicine最新文献

Objective: We previously demonstrated safe treatment of low- to moderate-severity (LTM) diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) using the SQuID protocol (subcutaneous insulin in DKA) in a non-intensive care unit (ICU) observation setting, with decreased emergency department length of stay (EDLOS). Here, we expand eligibility to include sicker patients and admission to a regular medical floor and collected more detailed clinical data in a near-real-time fashion.

Methods: This is a real-world, prospective, observational cohort study in an urban academic hospital (March 4, 2023-March 4, 2024). LTM DKA patients were treated with IV insulin (floor or ICU) or on SQuID. We compare fidelity (time to glargine and dextrose-containing fluids), safety (rescue dextrose for hypoglycemia), effectiveness (time to anion gap closure, time on protocol), and operational efficiency (time to bed request, EDLOS, and ICU admission rate since implementation of the protocol).

Results: Of 84 patients with LTM DKA, 62 (74%) of were treated with SQuID and 22 (26%) with IV insulin. Fidelity was high in both groups. Rescue dextrose was required in five (8%) versus four (18%) patients, respectively (difference 9%, -31% to 10%). Compared to the IV insulin group, time to anion gap was 1.4 h shorter (95% CI -3.4 to 0.2 h) and time on protocol was 10.4 h shorter (95% CI -22.3 to -5.0 h) in SQuID patients. Median EDLOS was lower in the SQuID cohort 9.8 h (IQR 6.0-13.6) than the IV floor cohort 18.3 h (IQR 13.4-22.0 h), but longer than the overall IV insulin cohort. Since inception of SQuID, ICU admission rate in LTM DKA has decreased from 54% to under 21%.

Conclusions: In this single-center study, we observed excellent fidelity, equivalent or superior safety, and clinical and operational effectiveness with SQuID compared to IV insulin. The SQuID protocol has become the de facto default pathway for treatment of LTM DKA. Since inception of SQuID, ICU admissions in LTM DKA have decreased 33%.

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.

Objective: Availability and accessibility of a wide range of medications may be a contributing factor to rising medication-related overdose (OD) rates. Treatment for both suicide attempts (SAs) and ODs often occurs in the emergency department (ED), highlighting its potential as a screening and intervention point. The current study aimed to identify sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of individuals who reported SA via medication OD compared to other methods and to examine how these patients' suicide severity and behaviors differed over 12-month post-ED follow-up.

Methods: Data were analyzed from Phases 1 and 2 of the Emergency Department Safety Assessment and Follow-up Evaluation multicenter study (N = 1376). Participants with a history of SA (n = 987) were categorized based on whether they indicated a past medication-related SA via OD.

Results: Of participants with history of SA, 62.7% (n = 619) reported medication OD for either their most serious or their most recent SA. Multivariate analyses indicated female birth sex, diagnosis of bipolar disorder, and having some college education were significantly associated with membership in the medication OD attempt group (p <0.05). Of those who attempted suicide over the 12-month follow-up, nearly 60% of participants in the medication OD attempt group reported a subsequent SA via OD over follow-up. However, nearly half (46.5%) of participants with no medication OD at baseline also reported medication OD at follow-up.

Conclusions: Among patients presenting to the ED, females, individuals with bipolar disorder, and patients with a college education, respectively, may be at highest risk for SAs via medication OD. Prospectively, medication OD appears to be a frequent method, even among individuals with no prior attempt via OD, as demonstrated by the high percentage of patients who did not have a medication OD at baseline, but reported a medication OD during follow-up.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The author declares no conflicts of interest.