CJEM最新文献

Objective: Although point of care ultrasound (POCUS) use has become prevalent in medicine, clinicians may not be familiar with the evidence supporting its utility in patient care. The objective of this study is to identify the top five most influential papers published on the use of cardiac POCUS and lung POCUS in adult patients.

Methods: A 14-member expert panel from the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) Emergency Ultrasound Committee and the Canadian Ultrasound Fellowship Collaborative used a modified Delphi process. Panel members are ultrasound fellowship trained or equivalent, are engaged in POCUS scholarship, and are leaders in POCUS locally and nationally in Canada. The modified Delphi process consisted of three rounds of sequential surveys and discussion to achieve consensus on the top five most influential papers on cardiac POCUS and lung POCUS.

Results: A total of 66 relevant papers on cardiac POCUS and 68 relevant papers on lung POCUS were nominated by the panel. There was 100% participation by the panel members in all three rounds of the modified Delphi process. At the end of this process, we identified the top five most influential papers on cardiac POCUS and lung POCUS. Papers include studies supporting the use of POCUS for accurately assessing left ventricular systolic function, diagnosing pericardial effusion, clarifying its test characteristics for pulmonary embolism, identifying pulmonary edema and pneumonia, as well as consensus statements on the use of cardiac and lung POCUS in clinical practice.

Conclusion: We have created a list of the top five influential papers on cardiac POCUS and lung POCUS as an evidence-based resource for trainees, clinicians, and researchers. This will help trainees and clinicians better understand how to use POCUS when scanning the heart and lungs, and it will also help researchers better understand where to direct their scholarly efforts with future research.

Purpose: To examine if an ED interprofessional team ("ED1Team") could safely decrease hospital admissions among older persons.

Methods: This single-center, retrospective, propensity score matched study was performed at a single ED during a control (December 2/2018-March 31/2019) and intervention (December 2/2019-March 31/2020) period. The intervention was assessed by the ED1Team, which could include an occupational therapist, physiotherapist, and social worker. We compared admission rates between period in persons age ≥ 70 years. Next, we compared visits attended by the ED1Team to (a) control period visits, and (b) intervention period visits without ED1Team attendance.

Secondary outcomes: ED length-of-stay, 7-day subsequent hospital admission and mortality in discharged patients.

Results: There were 5496 and 4876 eligible ED visits during the control and intervention periods, respectively. In the latter group, 556 (11.4%) received ED1Team assessment. After matching, there was an absolute 2.3% (p = 0.07) reduction in the admission rate between control and intervention periods. After matching the 556 ED1Team attended visits to control period visits, and to intervention period visits without the intervention, admission rates decreased by 10.0% (p = 0.006) and 13.5% (p < 0.001), respectively. For discharged patients, median ED length-of-stay decreased by 1.0 h (p < 0.001) between control and intervention periods and increased by 2.3 h (p < 0.001) compared to intervention period without the intervention. For patients discharged by the ED1Team, subsequent readmissions after 7 days were slightly higher, but mortality was not significantly different.

Conclusion: ED1Team consultation was associated with a decreased hospital admission rate in older ED patients. It was associated with a slightly longer ED length-of-stay and subsequent early hospitalizations. Given that even a small increase in freed hospital beds would release some of the pressure on an overextended healthcare system, these results suggest that upscaling of the intervention might procure systems-wide benefits.