Search

Background: Lung ultrasound (LUS) reduces time to diagnosis and treatment of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) in emergency department (ED) patients with undifferentiated dyspnea. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of LUS for ADHF in the prehospital setting., Methods: We performed a keyword search of multiple databases from inception through June 1, 2023. Included studies were those enrolling prehospital patients with undifferentiated dyspnea or suspected ADHF, and specifically diagnostic studies comparing prehospital LUS to a gold standard and intervention studies with a non-US comparator group. Title and abstract screening, full text review, risk of bias (ROB) assessments, and data extraction were performed by multiple authors. and adjudicated. The primary outcome was pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic likelihood ratios (LR) for prehospital LUS. A test-treatment threshold of 0.7 was applied based on prior ADHF literature in the ED. Intervention outcomes included mortality, mechanical ventilation, and time to HF specific treatment., Results: Eight diagnostic studies (n = 691) and two intervention studies (n = 70) met inclusion criteria. No diagnostic studies were low-ROB. Both intervention studies were critical-ROB, and not pooled. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of prehospital LUS for ADHF were 86.7% (95%CI:70.8%-94.6%) and 87.5% (78.2%-93.2%), respectively, with similar performance by physician vs. paramedic LUS and number of lung zones evaluated. Pooled LR+ and LR- were 7.27 (95% CI: 3.69-13.10) and 0.17 (95% CI: 0.06-0.34), respectively. Area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.922. At the observed 42.4% ADHF prevalence (pre-test probability), positive pre-hospital LUS exceeded the 70% threshold to initiate treatment (post-test probability 84%, 80-88%)., Conclusions: LUS had similar diagnostic test characteristics for ADHF diagnosis in the prehospital setting as in the ED. A positive prehospital LUS may be sufficient to initiate early ADHF treatment based on published test-treatment thresholds. More studies are needed to determine the clinical impact of prehospital LUS., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest FMR is a consultant for Butterfly Network. NEH reports research funding from the National Institutes of Health National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NIH NCATS), the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (CTSI), the Doris Duke Foundation, Abbott, and Indiana University School of Medicine. NEH reports Honoraria from EB Medicine. All other authors report no conflict of interest., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: Sepsis identification and treatment is a priority for emergency department (ED) providers and payors alike. However, aggressive metrics aimed at improving sepsis care could have unintended consequences for patients who do not have sepsis., Methods: All ED patient visits for a one month period before and after a quality initiative to increase early antibiotic use in septic patients were included. Overall broad spectrum (BS) antibiotic use, admission rates, and mortality were compared in the 2 time periods. A more detailed chart review was performed on those who received BS antibiotics in the before and after cohorts. Patient were excluded for pregnancy, age < 18, COVID-19 infection, hospice patients, left ED against medical advice, and if antibiotics were given for prophylaxis. In BS antibiotic treated patients, we sought to determine mortality, rates of subsequent multidrug resistant (MDR) or Clostridium Difficile (CDiff) infections and rates of non-infected patients receiving BS antibiotics., Results: There were 7967 and 7407 ED visits in the pre- and post-implementation periods, respectively. Of those, BS antibiotics were administered in a total of 3.9% pre-implementation and 6.2% post-implementation (p ≤ 0.00001). Admission was more common in the post-implementation period, but overall mortality was unchanged (0.9% pre-implementation and 0.8% post-implementation, p = 0.41). After exclusions, 654 patients treated with BS antibiotics were included in the secondary analyses. Baseline characteristics were similar between the pre-implementation and post-implementation cohorts. There was no difference in the rate of CDiff infection or the proportion of patients receiving BS antibiotics who were not infected, but there was an increase in the post-implementation period in MDR infections after ED BS antibiotics, 0.72% vs. 0.35% of the entire ED cohorts, p = 0.0009., Conclusions: We found that a QI sepsis initiative was associated with an increase in the proportion of patients who received BS antibiotics in the ED, and a small absolute increase in associated subsequent MDR infections, with no apparent effect on mortality in all ED patients or the subset treated with BS antibiotics. Further research is needed to assess the impact on all patients affected by aggressive sepsis protocols and initiatives, rather than only those with sepsis., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Violence directed at healthcare workers (HCWs) is common and may be more frequent in the emergency department (ED). In addition to physical injury, other consequences of workplace violence in the ED include an increased risk of burnout, post-traumatic stress disorder, reduced job satisfaction, and feelings of avoidance and futility. Understanding behaviors underlying workplace violence is the first step to employing mitigation strategies. The objective of this descriptive study was to assess the prevalence and types of violence against HCWs in a large, urban ED., Methods: This study took place in the ED of an urban hospital with an annual ED census of approximately 100,000. A previously existing general patient safety incident "dropbox" for HCWs was utilized to capture workplace violence reports. At the completion of the study period, all data was collated into the electronic database and each report was categorized based on the nature and severity of the abuse. Further, all events were also coded as either involving or not involving specifically racist, sexist, or homophobic content. The primary outcomes were the number of reported events over the study period, and the percentage of total events that fell into each category. The secondary outcomes were the overall prevalence and ratio of events that included racist, sexist, or homophobic language or provocation., Results: Over the 5-month survey period, 130 reports of workplace violence were recorded, on average 0.85 per day. Perpetrators were mostly male, and most victims were nurses. Hospital security was involved in 26% of cases. At least 37% of incidents involved patients that were intoxicated and/or had history of psychiatric illness. Type I events (swearing provocatively, shouting, and legal threats) were the most common at 44% of encounters while 22% involved physical violence. Racist, sexist, and homophobic comments were involved in 8 (6%), 18 (14%), and 3 (2%) incidents respectively., Conclusion: We found that workplace violence against HCWs was common in this study, and sometimes involved a component of racist, sexist, or homophobic bias. Consistent with previous ED literature, we found that abusive events occurred almost daily and that approximately 20% of events involved physical violence. Future efforts toward policy change to address workplace violence in health care is needed at local, state, and national levels., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors do not have any declarations of interest or conflicts of interest to report., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)