Search

Introduction: Chest imaging plays a prominent role in the assessment of patients with blunt trauma. Selection of the right approach at the right time is fundamental in the management of patients with blunt chest trauma . [1] A reliable, economic, bedside, and rapidly accomplished screening test can be pivotal. [2]., Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of extended- focused assessment with sonography for trauma (E-FAST) to that of the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilisation Study (NEXUS) chest algorithm in detecting blunt chest injuries., Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study included 50 polytrauma patients with blunt chest trauma from the emergency centre of Suez Canal University Hospital. E-FAST and computed tomography (CT) were conducted, followed by reporting of NEXUS criteria for all patients. Blinding of the E-FAST performer and CT reporter were confirmed. The results of both the NEXUS algorithm and E-FAST were compared with CT chest results., Results: The NEXUS algorithm had 100% sensitivity and 15.3% specificity, and E-FAST had 70% sensitivity and 96.7% specificity, in the detection of pneumothorax.In the detection of hemothorax, the sensitivity and specificity of the NEXUS algorithm were 90% and 7.5%, respectively, whereas E-FAST had a lower sensitivity of 80% and a higher specificity of 97.5%., Conclusion: E-FAST is highly specific for the detection of hemothorax, pneumothorax, and chest injuries compared with the NEXUS chest algorithm, which demonstrated the lowest specificity. However, the NEXUS chest algorithm showed a higher sensitivity than E-FAST and hence can be used effectively to rule out thoracic injury., Competing Interests: This work was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Fogarty International Center, Bethesda, MD (grant number, 2D43TW007296). The authors declare that they have no other competing interests., (© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of African Federation for Emergency Medicine.)

Introduction: Trauma deaths account for 8% of all deaths in Egypt. Patients with multiple injuries are at high risk but may be saved with a good triage system and a well-trained trauma team in dedicated institutions. The incidence of missed injuries in the Emergency Centre (EC) of Suez Canal University Hospital (SCUH) was found to be 9.0% after applying Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) guidelines. However, this rate is still high compared with many trauma centers., Aim: Improve the quality of management of polytrauma patients by decreasing the incidence of missed injuries by implementing the Sequential Trauma Education Programs (STEPs) course in the EC at SCUH., Methods: This interventional training study was conducted in the SCUH EC that adheres to CONSORT guidelines. The study was conducted during the one month precourse and for 6 months after the implementation of the STEPs course for EC physicians. Overall, 458 polytrauma patients were randomly selected, of which 45 were found to have missed injuries after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. We assessed the clinical relevance of these cases for missed injuries before and after the STEPs course., Results: Overall, 45 patients were found to have missed injuries, of which 15 (12%) were pre-STEPs and 30 (9%) were post-STEPs course. The STEPs course significantly increased adherence to vital data recording, but the reduction of missed injuries (3.0%) was not statistically significant in relation to demographic and trauma findings. However, the decrease in missed injuries in the post-STEPs course group was an essential clinically significant finding., Conclusion: STEPs course implementation decreased the incidence of missed injuries in polytrauma patients. Thus, the STEPs course can be considered at the same level of other advanced trauma courses as a training skills program or possibly better in dealing with trauma patients. Repetition of this course by physicians should be mandatory to prevent more missed injuries. Therefore, the validation of STEPs course certification should be completed at least every two years to help decrease the number of missed injuries, especially in low-income countries and low-resource settings., (© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of African Federation for Emergency Medicine.)

Introduction: "Delayed discharge" is defined as patients who remain hospitalised beyond the time of being fit for discharge after a decision of discharge has been made by the managing team. There is no standardised amount of time defining delayed discharge documented in the literature, and there is a lack of evidence about this topic in Egypt. This study is a quality improvement project aiming to identify the factors associated with discharge delays at a single centre in Egypt in order to address this issue., Methods: A prospective observational study included all trauma patients admitted to a University Hospital in Egypt over two months. The time of the decision of discharge and actual discharge time were recorded by reviewing patients' medical records. The patients and their caregivers were asked to fill in a questionnaire about the reasons for delayed discharge. Potential reasons for the delayed discharge were classified into system-related, medical and family-related factors., Results: The study included 498 patients with a median age of 41 years (9-72). The median time from discharge decision until actual discharge was 3 h. System-related factors were documented in 48.8% of cases, followed by medical factors (36.3%), and family-related factors (28.1%). When controlling for age, gender and injury severity score using a logistic regression analysis, longer time to discharge (≥3 h) showed a stronger association with medical factors [adjusted OR (95% CI) = 5.44 (2.73-10.85)] and family-related factors [adjusted OR (95% CI) = 7.94 (3.40-18.54)] compared to system-related factors [adjusted OR (95% CI) = 2.20 (1.12-4.29)]., Discussion: Although system-related factors were more prevalent, medical and family-related factors appear to be associated with longer discharge delays compared to system-related factors., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd. CC BY 4.0.)