Search

Objective: This national postal survey aimed to examine Canadian emergency physicians' practice patterns with respect to drug treatment and perspectives on peripheral nerve blocks. Background: The treatment of primary headache disorders in the emergency department is variable. Methods: We surveyed 500 emergency physicians listed in the Canadian Medical Directory according to a modified Dillman's method: an initial invitation was followed by up to four reminders to nonresponders. Physicians were asked questions regarding their frequency of medication administration and perspectives toward peripheral nerve blocks. Results: Of 500 mailed surveys, 468 were delivered and 179 physicians responded (response rate = 38.2%). The majority of physicians were men (92/144, 63.9%); 80.6% (116/144) had been in practice for greater than or equal to 10 years with 50.7% (75/148) in a community or district general teaching hospital. Commonly used pharmacotherapies for primary headaches were intravenous dopamine receptor antagonists (69%), co‐administration of ketorolac and a dopamine receptor antagonist (54.2%), intravenous fluid boluses (54%), nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) alone (53.5%), and acetaminophen (51.4%). Only 80 of 144 physicians (55.6%) reported previous experience with peripheral nerve blocks (95% confidence interval [CI] = 48%–65%). The majority (68/80, 85.0%) agreed peripheral nerve blocks are safe and 55.1% (43/78) agreed they are effective. The vast majority (118/140, 84.3%) would consider peripheral nerve blocks as a first‐line treatment option given sufficient evidence from a future trial (95% CI = 78%–90%). Conclusion: NSAIDs alone, as well as dopamine receptor antagonists with or without ketorolac are commonly used for primary headache in Canadian emergency departments. A large proportion of physicians have never used a peripheral nerve block in their practice; among those who have experience with peripheral nerve blocks, the majority find them safe and effective. The majority of respondents would consider peripheral nerve blocks as a first‐line treatment option given sufficient evidence from a future trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: No common or widely accepted criteria exist for physician review of blood films or for reported standards of physician rate of blood film review. Individual institutions generally have internal criteria for physician review of blood films. To better understand how and why blood film reviews are performed at different institutions across Canada, with a specific interest in physician blood film review, we undertook a survey to assess the current practise patterns of physician review of blood films across Canada. Methods: A 15 question survey was developed and sent to 24 academic, large community and corporate laboratories across Canada by e‐mail to laboratory directors of those institutions. Centres were chosen to include all provinces in Canada and most of the major academic centres. Twenty of the 24 centres responded. Results: The mean rate of physician review of blood films as a percentage of all CBCs processed per day was 4.1% (range 0.35%‐13%) and of all blood films made per day was 28.8% (range 1.9%‐66.5%). Data on factors which might affect physician review rates, physician preferences regarding what percentage of physician blood film review rates is reasonable and physician perspectives on the role of physician blood film review are discussed. Conclusion: This survey reveals that there is varying practise patterns and opinions with respect to blood film review by physicians in Canada. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Acute gastroenteritis is a very common emergency department (ED) diagnosis accounting for greater than 1.5 million outpatient visits and 200,000 hospitalizations annually among children in the United States. Although guidelines exist to assist clinicians, they do not clearly address topics for which evidence is new or limited, including the use of antiemetic agents, probiotics, and intravenous (IV) fluid rehydration regimens. This study sought to describe the ED treatments administered to children with acute gastroenteritis and to compare management between Canadian and U.S. physicians practicing pediatric emergency medicine (PEM). Methods: Members of PEM research networks located in Canada and the United States were invited to participate in a cross-sectional, Internet-based survey. Participants were included if they are attending physicians and provide care to patients < 18 years of age in an ED. Results: In total, 235 of 339 (73%) eligible individuals responded. A total of 103 of 136 Canadian physicians (76%) report initiating oral rehydration therapy (ORT) in children with moderate dehydration, compared with 44 of 94 (47%) of their U.S. colleagues (p < 0.001). The latter more often administer antiemetic agents to children with vomiting (67% vs. 45%; p = 0.001). American physicians administer larger IV fluid bolus volumes (p < 0.001) and over shorter time periods (p = 0.001) and repeat the fluid boluses more frequently (p < 0.001). Probiotics are routinely recommended by only 35 of 230 respondents (15%). Conclusions: The treatment of pediatric gastroenteritis varies by geographic location and differs significantly between Canadian and American PEM physicians. Oral rehydration continues to be underused, particularly in the United States. Probiotic use remains uncommon, while ondansetron administration has become routine. Children frequently receive IV rehydration, with the rate and volume administered being greater in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although intravenous (IV) magnesium (Mg) can decrease hospitalizations in children with severe acute asthma, its use is often limited to resistant disease, and disposition may be determined prior to its use. Since knowledge about practice patterns of IV Mg would enhance knowledge translation and guide future research, we surveyed pediatric emergency physicians with interest in clinical research to determine the frequency, indications, adverse events, and barriers to use of IV Mg in children with severe acute asthma. A cross-sectional online survey of two national pediatric emergency physician associations in Canada and the United States was conducted using a modified Dillman technique. Response rates were 124 of 180 (69%) in Canada and 75 of 108 (69%) in the United States. Although 88% of participants report knowing that Mg is effective, only 14 of 199 (7%) give it to prevent hospitalizations and 142 of 199 (71%) give it to prevent admissions to the intensive care unit (ICU). Thirty-eight percent of respondents use Mg in < 5% of stable children with severe acute asthma, while 79% use it in 50% or more of the ICU candidates with concern about impending respiratory failure. Seventy-nine percent of the participants report that < 5% of their patients given Mg are discharged home from the ED. Twenty-four percent of respondents who administer Mg have encountered associated severe hypotension requiring therapy, and 2% have witnessed-related apnea. Factors affecting Mg use include concern about side effects expressed by 24% of physicians and a belief that IV therapy is not necessary, expressed by 31%. Intravenous Mg appears to be uncommonly used in stable children with severe acute asthma and does not frequently play a role in reducing hospitalizations. Further research to justify its enhanced use and to better establish its true adverse effect profile is indicated. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:1189-1196 © 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]