Academic Emergency Medicine最新文献

Objectives: Up to 50% of ultrasounds (USs) for suspected pediatric appendicitis are nondiagnostic. While the validated low-risk clinical pediatric Appendicitis Risk Calculator (pARC) score < 15% and the low-risk US with nonvisualized appendix and no periappendiceal inflammation carry relatively low appendicitis risks, the contribution of the combination of both characteristics to this risk has never been assessed. The primary objective was to determine the proportion of children with the low-risk US-low-risk pARC combination with appendicitis. We hypothesized that this proportion would be 2.5% (upper 95% CI ≤ 5%).

Methods: A retrospective cohort study of 448 previously healthy children 4-17 years old at a pediatric ED with suspected appendicitis, nondiagnostic US, and persistent clinical concern about appendicitis. Two investigators abstracted demographic, clinical, and imaging data. Based on published criteria, USs were classified as low-risk or high-risk. The pARC includes seven demographic, clinical, and laboratory variables and is quantified according to the published formula. The primary outcome was appendicitis, based on the histological evidence. All nonoperated patients underwent a 1-month-follow-up to exclude delayed appendicitis diagnoses.

Results: Sixty of the 448 (13.4%) patients had appendicitis; 269 (60%) had low-risk US, 262 (58.4%) had low-risk pARC, and 163 (36.4%) had both characteristics. The appendicitis rates with low-risk pARC alone and low-risk US alone were 14/262 (5.4%) and 21/269 (7.8%), respectively. A total of 2/163 children (1.2%) with low-risk pARC and low-risk US had appendicitis (95% CI 0%-4.4%). Higher-risk US increased the appendicitis odds 5 (95% CI 1.54-20.55) to 11 times (95% CI 2.41-51.10) across pARC levels. The low-risk combination had sensitivity of 96.7% (95% CI 88.5%-99.6%), specificity of 41.5%, positive predictive value of 20.4%, and negative predictive value of 98.8% (95% CI 95.6%-99.9%).

Conclusions: The children with low-risk pARC and low-risk US combination are unlikely to have appendicitis and can be discharged home. The presence of higher-risk US-pARC score combinations substantially increases the appendicitis risk and warrants reassessment or interval imaging.

Background: A quarter of patients who present to emergency departments (EDs) have difficult intravenous access (DIVA), making it challenging for clinicians to successfully place a peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC). Some literature suggests that guidewire PIVC improves first-insertion success rate.

Aim: The aim was to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a novel long PIVC (5.8 cm) with a retractable coiled guidewire (GW-PIVC) for patients with DIVA, compared with standard care PIVCs.

Methods: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial was conducted in two Australian EDs. Eligible participants were adults assessed as meeting DIVA criteria. Participants were randomized (1:1 ratio; stratified by hospital) to either GW-PIVC (long) or standard care group (short or long PIVC). The use of ultrasound was discretionary in the standard care group and was recommended in the GW-PIVC group due to the pragmatic design that was primarily testing the GW-PIVC rather than the ultrasound use. Primary outcome was first-insertion success and secondary outcomes included all-cause device failure, patient and staff satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness. The analysis was intention to treat.

Results: A total of 446 participants were randomized and 409 received PIVCs. The use of GW-PIVC, compared with standard PIVC, had a lower first-insertion success rate (68% vs. 77%, odds ratio [OR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43-0.99, p < 0.05). There was no difference in PIVC failure (134.0 per 1000 catheter days [GW-PIVC] vs. 111.8 [standard PIVC] per 1000 catheter days, hazard ratio 1.18, 95% CI 0.72-1.95). Both participant (8/10 vs. 9/10, median difference [MD] -1.00, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.63) and clinician (8/10 vs. 10/10, MD -2.00, 95% CI -2.37 to -1.63) satisfaction was lower with GW-PIVCs compared with standard PIVCs. More nurses inserted standard PIVCs than GW-PIVCs (56.9% vs. 36.5%) and had less confidence in their ultrasound skills (28.0% vs. 46.6% self-claimed as advanced/expert users). The cost per participant of GW-PIVC insertions was 2.46 times greater than standard PIVC insertions ($AU80.24 vs. $AU32.57).

Conclusions: GW-PIVCs had significantly lower first-insertion success and non-significantly higher all-cause catheter failure. Additional training and device design familiar to clinicians are vital factors to enhance the likelihood of successful future implementation of GW-PIVCs.

Background: Emergency physicians have the highest rates of burnout among all specialties. Existing burnout tools include the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) and single-item measures from the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). While both were designed to measure burnout, how they conceptualize this phenomenon differs and their agreement is unclear. Given the close conceptual relationship between emotional regulation strategies such as distancing and distraction with the MBI subscale of depersonalization, we examined agreement between the two inventories and association with emotional regulation strategies as a lens to explore the conceptualization of burnout.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of adult and pediatric emergency physicians and trainees in Canada. Survey questions were pretested using written feedback and cognitive interviews. "Frequent use" of an emotional regulation strategy was "most" or "all" shifts (≥4 on 5-point Likert scale). Burnout was defined as mean ≥50/100 on the CBI and scoring ≥5 (out of 7) on at least one of the single-item measures from the MBI. Associations with burnout were examined using multivariable logistic regression.

Results: Of 147 respondents, 44.2% were positive for burnout on the CBI and 44.9% on the single-item measures from the MBI. Disagreement was 21.1% overall, ranging from 12.5% for older (≥55 years) physicians to 30.2% for younger (<35 years) physicians. Use of distraction and use of distancing were strongly associated with burnout on the single-item measures (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 14.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.4-60.8]) and CBI (aOR 10.1, 95% CI 2.5-39.8, respectively.

Conclusions: Despite near-equal rates of burnout, agreement between the CBI and single-item measures from the MBI varies and was lower for younger emergency physicians/trainees. While emotional regulation strategies were felt to be important in supporting a career in emergency medicine, they were strongly associated with burnout. Future research is needed to better understand this phenomenon and which tools to use to measure burnout.