Search

Learning Objectives: 1. Recognize a new format to teach end-of-life care. 2. Review the perception of learners using a serious-game framework to learn rapid discussion about goals of care.Introduction: Emergency departments (ED) care for many patients who are chronically ill and nearing end of life. Establishing goals of care and code status in the ED is an essential skill for Emergency Medicine (EM) residents but is challenging to teach.Educational Objectives: To develop EM residents’ ability to: 1) identify patients in need of a goals-of-care discussion; 2) interpret advance care planning documents; 3) efficiently conduct an informed code status discussion; and 4) manage the actively dying patient.Curricular Design: High-fidelity simulation was utilized to replicate the experience of caring for a critically-ill patient in the high-stress ED environment. The scenario involved a live standardized patient with stage 4 pancreatic cancer presenting with sepsis due to pneumonia and who had the goal of comfort-focused care. The simulation utilized the Live-Die-Repeat format, which is a serious-game scheme in which learners are allowed infinite opportunities (“lives”) to progress through a single patient scenario. If learners complete the predetermined critical actions, the game is paused and there is a debriefing to reinforce knowledge and skills before resident’s progress to the next stage of the simulation. Conversely, if learners do not complete critical actions, the game is over and learners must undergo remedial debriefing before they repeat the scenario they previously failed.Impact/Effectiveness: Eighty percent (16/20) of the residents completed a Simulation Effectiveness Tool-Modified survey and 100% strongly or somewhat agree the simulation improved their skills and confidence at the end of life including: better prepared to respond to changes in condition, more confident in assessment skills, teaching patients, reporting to the medical team, empowered to make clinical decisions, and ability to prioritize care and interventions (Figure). Comments emphasized the impact of simulation on their ability to have a goal of care discussion (Table).

Introduction: Epinephrine is the treatment of choice for anaphylaxis. We surveyed emergency department (ED) health care providers regarding 2 methods of intramuscular (IM) epinephrine administration (autoinjector and manual injection) for the management of anaphylaxis and allergic reactions and identified provider perceptions and preferred method of medication delivery.Methods: This observational study adhered to survey reporting guidelines. It was performed through a Web-based survey completed by health care providers at an academic ED. The participants consisted of all ED providers, including staff physicians, resident physicians, pharmacists, advanced practice providers, and nurses. The primary outcomes were assessment of provider perceptions and identification of the preferred IM epinephrine administration method by ED health care providers.Results: Of 217 ED health care providers invited to participate, 172 (79%) completed the survey. Overall, 82% of respondents preferred the autoinjector method of epinephrine administration. Providers rated the autoinjector method more favorably with regard to time required for training, ease of use, convenience, satisfaction with weight-based dosing, risk of dosing errors, and speed of administration (P

Background: Medical encounters require an efficient and focused history of present illness (HPI) to create differential diagnoses and guide diagnostic testing and treatment. Our aim was to compare the HPI of notes created by an automated digital intake tool versus standard medical notes created by clinicians.Methods: Prospective trial in a quaternary academic Emergency Department (ED). Notes were compared using the 5-point Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9) scale and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) level of complexity index. Reviewers were board certified emergency medicine physicians blinded to note origin. Reviewers received training and calibration prior to note assessments. A difference of 1 point was considered clinically significant. Analysis included McNemar's (binary), Wilcoxon-rank (Likert), and agreement with Cohen's Kappa.Results: A total of 148 ED medical encounters were charted by both digital note and standard clinical note. The ability to capture patient information was assessed through comparison of note content across paired charts (digital-standard note on the same patient), as well as scores given by the reviewers. Reviewer agreement was kappa 0.56 (CI 0.49-0.64), indicating moderate level of agreement between reviewers scoring the same patient chart. Considering all 18 questions across PDQI-9 and CMS scales, the average agreement between standard clinical note and digital note was 54.3% (IQR 44.4-66.7%). There was a moderate level of agreement between content of standard and digital notes (kappa 0.54, 95%CI 0.49-0.60). The quality of the digital note was within the 1 point clinically significant difference for all of the attributes, except for conciseness. Digital notes had a higher frequency of CMS severity elements identified.Conclusion: Digitally generated clinical notes had moderate agreement compared to standard clinical notes and within the one point clinically significant difference except for the conciseness attribute. Digital notes more reliably documented billing components of severity. The use of automated notes should be further explored to evaluate its utility in facilitating documentation of patient encounters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals have a gender identity or expression that differs from the sex assigned to them at birth. They are an underserved population who experience health care inequities. Our primary objective was to identify if there are treatment differences between TGD and cisgender lesbian/gay/bisexual/queer (LGBQ) or heterosexual individuals presenting with abdominal pain to the emergency department (ED)., Methods: Retrospective observational cohort study of patients ≥12 years of age presenting to 21 EDs within a health care system with a chief complaint of abdominal pain between 2018 and 2022. TGD patients were matched 1:1:1:1 to cisgender LGBQ women and men and cisgender heterosexual women and men, respectively. Propensity score matching covariates included age, ED site, mental health history, and gastrointestinal history. The primary outcome was pain assessment within 60 min of arrival. The secondary outcome was analgesics administered in the ED., Results: We identified 300 TGD patients, of whom 300 TGD patients were successfully matched for a total cohort of 1300 patients. The median (IQR) age was 25 (20-32) years and most patients were treated in a community ED (58.2%). There was no difference between groups in pain assessment within 60 min of arrival (59.0% TGD vs. 63.2% non TGD, p = 0.19). There were no differences in the number of times pain was assessed (median [IQR] 2 [1-3] vs. 2 [1-4], p = 0.31) or the severity of pain between groups (5.5 [4-7] vs. 6 [4-7], p = 0.11). TGD patients were more likely to receive nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (32.0% vs. 24.9%, p = 0.015) and less likely to receive opioids than non-TGD patients (24.7% vs. 36.9%, p = <0.001). TGD and nonbinary patients, along with LGBQ cisgender women (24.7%) and heterosexual cisgender women (34%), were less likely to receive opioids than LGBQ cisgender men (54%) and heterosexual cisgender men (42.3%, p < 0.01)., Conclusion: There was no difference in frequency of pain assessment, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. More cisgender men, compared to TGD and cisgender women, received opioids for their pain., (© 2024 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)