Search

Objective: The objective is to externally validate and assess the opportunity to update the Canadian COVID-19 Mortality Score (CCMS) to predict in-hospital mortality among consecutive non-palliative COVID-19 patients infected with Omicron subvariants at a time when vaccinations were widespread., Design: This observational study validated the CCMS in an external cohort at a time when Omicron variants were dominant. We assessed the potential to update the rule and improve its performance by recalibrating and adding vaccination status in a subset of patients from provinces with access to vaccination data and created the adjusted CCMS (CCMS adj ). We followed discharged patients for 30 days after their index emergency department visit or for their entire hospital stay if admitted., Setting: External validation cohort for CCMS: 36 hospitals participating in the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN). Update cohort for CCMS adj : 14 hospitals in CCEDRRN in provinces with vaccination data., Participants: Consecutive non-palliative COVID-19 patients presenting to emergency departments., Main Outcome Measures: In-hospital mortality., Results: Of 39 682 eligible patients, 1654 (4.2%) patients died. The CCMS included age, sex, residence type, arrival mode, chest pain, severe liver disease, respiratory rate and level of respiratory support and predicted in-hospital mortality with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.88 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.88) in external validation. Updating the rule by recalibrating and adding vaccination status to create the CCMS adj changed the weights for age, respiratory status and homelessness, but only marginally improved its performance, while vaccination status did not. The CCMS adj had an AUC of 0.91 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.92) in validation. CCMS adj scores of <10 categorised patients as low risk with an in-hospital mortality of <1.6%. A score>15 had observed mortality of >56.8%., Conclusions: The CCMS remained highly accurate in predicting mortality from Omicron and improved marginally through recalibration. Adding vaccination status did not improve the performance. The CCMS can be used to inform patient prognosis, goals of care conversations and guide clinical decision-making for emergency department patients with COVID-19., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: For emergency department (ED) patients with syncope, cardiac troponin can identify acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and prognosticate for 30-day serious adverse events. However, it is unclear if serial testing improves diagnostic yield and prognostication., Methods: This was a secondary analysis of data from two prospective studies conducted to develop the Canadian Syncope Risk Score. Adults (age ≥ 16 years) with syncope were enrolled, and patient characteristics, vital signs, physician diagnostic impression, electrocardiogram and troponin results, and adjudicated 30-day serious adverse event were collected. The primary outcome was the detection of a serious adverse event within 30 days of ED disposition. The secondary outcome was comparison of ED length of stay among patients with single versus serial troponin measurements., Results: 4996 patients [mean age 64.5 (SD 18.8) years, 52.2% male] were included: 4397 (89.8%) with single troponin [232 (5.3%) with serious adverse event in the ED and 203 (4.6%) after ED disposition]; 499 (10.2%) patients with > 1 troponin measurement [39 (7.8%) with serious adverse event in ED and 60 (12.0%) after ED disposition]. Among those with serial measurements, 10 patients (2.0%) had a rise from below to above the 99th percentile threshold, of whom 4 patients (0.8%) suffered serious adverse event: two with arrhythmias diagnosed on electrocardiogram, one with ACS and one suffered respiratory failure. Nine patients (1.8%) had Canadian Syncope Risk Score risk reclassification based on serial measurement, and none suffered 30-day serious adverse event. Median ED length of stay was significantly longer for patients with serial testing (5.6 vs. 3.8 h, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: The initial troponin measurement was sufficient for serious adverse event detection and in-ED risk stratification. Serial troponin testing does not improve the diagnostic yield or prognostication and should be reserved for patients with ongoing symptoms or electrocardiogram findings suggestive of cardiac ischemia., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP)/ Association Canadienne de Médecine d'Urgence (ACMU).)

Objective: Unplanned return emergency department (ED) visits can reflect clinical deterioration or unmet need from the original visit. We determined the characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who return to the ED for COVID-19-related revisits., Methods: This retrospective observational study used data for all adult patients visiting 47 Canadian EDs with COVID-19 between 1 March 2020 and 31 March 2022. Multivariable logistic regression assessed the characteristics associated with having a no return visit (SV=single visit group) versus at least one return visit (MV=return visit group) after being discharged alive at the first ED visit., Results: 39 809 patients with COVID-19 had 44 862 COVID-19-related ED visits: 35 468 patients (89%) had one visit (SV group) and 4341 (11%) returned to the ED (MV group) within 30 days (mean 2.2, SD=0.5 ED visit). 40% of SV patients and 16% of MV patients were admitted at their first visit, and 41% of MV patients not admitted at their first ED visit were admitted on their second visit. In the MV group, the median time to return was 4 days, 49% returned within 72 hours. In multivariable modelling, a repeat visit was associated with a variety of factors including older age (OR=1.25 per 10 years, 95% CI (1.22 to 1.28)), pregnancy (1.86 (1.46 to 2.36)) and presence of comorbidities (eg, 1.72 (1.40 to 2.10) for cancer, 2.01 (1.52 to 2.66) for obesity, 2.18 (1.42 to 3.36) for organ transplant), current/prior substance use, higher temperature or WHO severe disease (1.41 (1.29 to 1.54)). Return was less likely for females (0.82 (0.77 to 0.88)) and those boosted or fully vaccinated (0.48 (0.34 to 0.70))., Conclusions: Return ED visits by patients with COVID-19 within 30 days were common during the first two pandemic years and were associated with multiple factors, many of which reflect known risk for worse outcomes. Future studies should assess reasons for revisit and opportunities to improve ED care and reduce resource use., Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04702945., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To identify individual and site-related factors associated with frequent emergency department (ED) buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP) initiation. BUP initiation, an effective opioid use disorder (OUD) intervention, varies widely across Canadian EDs., Methods: We surveyed emergency physicians in 6 Canadian provinces from 2018 to 2019 using bilingual paper and web-based questionnaires. Survey domains included BUP-related practice, demographics, attitudes toward BUP, and site characteristics. We defined frequent BUP initiation (the primary outcome) as at least once per month, high OUD prevalence as at least one OUD patient per shift, and high OUD resources as at least 3 out of the following 5 resources: BUP initiation pathways, BUP in ED, peer navigators, accessible addiction specialists, and accessible follow-up clinics. We excluded responses from sites with <50% participation (to minimize non-responder bias) and those missing the primary outcome. We used univariate analysis to identify associations between frequent BUP initiation and factors of interest, stratifying by OUD prevalence., Results: We excluded 3 responses for missing BUP initiation frequency and 9 for low response rate at one ED. Of the remaining 649 respondents from 34 EDs, 374 (58%) practiced in metropolitan areas, 384 (59%) reported high OUD prevalence, 312 (48%) had high OUD resources, and 161 (25%) initiated BUP frequently. Age, gender, board certification and years in practice were not associated with frequent BUP initiation. Site-specific factors were associated with frequent BUP initiation (high OUD resources [OR 6.91], high OUD prevalence [OR 4.45], and metropolitan location [OR 2.39],) as were individual attitudinal factors (willingness, confidence, and responsibility to initiate BUP.) Similar associations persisted in the high OUD prevalence subgroup., Conclusions: Individual attitudinal and site-specific factors were associated with frequent BUP initiation. Training to increase physician confidence and increasing OUD resources could increase BUP initiation and benefit ED patients with OUD., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 MacKinnon et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Current diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) treatment guidelines recommend using normal saline (NS); however, NS may delay DKA resolution by causing more hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis compared with balanced crystalloids. This study's objective was to determine the feasibility of a future multicentred randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing intravenous Ringer's lactate (RL) with NS in managing ED patients with DKA., Methods: We conducted a parallel-arm, triple-blind, pilot RCT of adults (≥18 years) with DKA at a Canadian academic tertiary care ED. The primary feasibility outcome was recruitment rate (target ≥41.3% of eligible participants over the 1-year study period); the primary efficacy outcome was time elapsed from ED presentation to DKA resolution. The superiority margin for a clinically significant difference was chosen to be a 40% time reduction to DKA resolution. We also assessed the need to break allocation concealment and loss to follow-up. Patients with clinical suspicion for DKA were screened for inclusion and enrolled patients were randomised 1:1 to receive RL or NS. Patients, clinicians and outcome assessors were blinded to allocation., Results: We enrolled 52 (25 RL, 27 NS) of 60 eligible patients (86.7%), exceeding our target recruitment rate. There were more patients in the NS group with type 1 diabetes, and more patients in the RL group had an admission co-diagnosis in addition to DKA. For the 44 participants with confirmed laboratory evidence of resolution, median (IQR) time to DKA resolution for RL versus NS was 15.7 (10.4-18.8) and 12.7 (7.9-19.2) hours, respectively. There were no cases where blinding was broken, and there was no loss to follow-up., Conclusions: This pilot trial demonstrated our protocol's feasibility by exceeding our target recruitment rate. Our results may be used to inform future multicentre trials to compare the safety and efficacy of RL and NS in managing DKA in the ED., Trial Registration Number: NCT04926740., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Outside of this study, KKC has received a research award sponsored in part by AstraZeneca. She has attended conferences sponsored by Merck. She has received honoraria for delivering certified medical education from Sutherland Global Services Canada ULC, the Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Group and the CPD Network. There are no other conflicts of interest to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Wide variations in emergency department (ED) syncope management exist. The Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) was developed to predict the probability of 30-day serious outcomes after ED disposition. Study objectives were to evaluate the acceptability of proposed CSRS practice recommendations among providers and patients, and identify barriers and facilitators for CSRS use to guide disposition decisions., Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 41 physicians involved in ED syncope and 35 ED patients with syncope. We used purposive sampling to ensure a variety of physician specialties and CSRS patient risk levels. Thematic analysis was completed by two independent coders with consensus meetings to resolve conflicts. Analysis proceeded in parallel with interviews until data saturation., Results: The majority (97.6%; 40/41) of physicians agreed with discharge of low risk (CSRS ≤ 0) but opined that 'no follow up' changed to 'follow-up as needed'. Physicians indicated current practices do not align with the medium-risk recommendation to discharge patients with 15-day monitoring (CSRS = 1-3; due to lack of access to monitors and timely follow-up) and the high-risk recommendation (CSRS ≥ 4) to potentially discharge patients with 15-day monitoring. Physicians recommended brief hospitalization of high-risk patients due to patient safety concerns. Facilitators included the CSRS-based patient education and scores supporting their clinical gestalt. Patients reported receiving varying levels of information regarding syncope and post-ED care, were satisfied with care received and preferred less resource intensive options., Conclusion: Our recommendations based on the study results were: discharge of low-risk patients with physician follow-up as needed; discharge of medium-risk patients with 15-day cardiac monitoring and brief hospitalization of high-risk patients with 15-day cardiac monitoring if discharged. Patients preferred less resource intensive options, in line with CSRS recommended care. Implementation should leverage identified facilitators (e.g., patient education) and address the barriers (e.g., monitor access) to improve ED syncope care., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP)/ Association Canadienne de Médecine d'Urgence (ACMU).)

Objective: Intubation practices changed during the COVID-19 pandemic to protect healthcare workers from transmission of disease. Our objectives were to describe intubation characteristics and outcomes for patients tested for SARS CoV-2 infection. We compared outcomes between patients testing SARS COV-2 positive with those testing negative., Methods: We conducted a health records review using the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) registry. We included consecutive eligible patients who presented to one of 47 EDs across Canada between March 1, 2020 and June 20, 2021, were tested for SARS-CoV-2 and intubated in the ED. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients experiencing a post-intubation adverse event during the ED stay. Secondary outcomes included first-pass success, intubation practices, and hospital mortality. We used descriptive statistics to summarize variables with subgroup differences examined using t tests, z tests, or chi-squared tests where appropriate with 95% CIs., Results: Of 1720 patients with suspected COVID-19 who were intubated in the ED during the study period, 337 (19.6%) tested SARS-CoV-2 positive and 1383 (80.4%) SARS-CoV-2 negative. SARS-CoV-2 positive patients presented to hospital with lower oxygen levels than SARS-CoV-2 negative patients (mean pulse oximeter SaO2 86 vs 94%, p < 0.001). In total, 8.5% of patients experienced an adverse event post-intubation. More patients in the SARS-CoV-2 positive subgroup experienced post-intubation hypoxemia (4.5 vs 2.2%, p = 0.019). In-hospital mortality was greater for patients who experienced intubation-related adverse events (43.2 vs 33.2%, p = 0.018). There was no significant difference in adverse event-associated mortality by SARS-CoV-2 status. First-pass success was achieved in 92.4% of all intubations, with no difference by SARS-CoV-2 status., Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, we observed a low risk of adverse events associated with intubation, even though hypoxemia was common in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2. We observed high rates of first-pass success and low rates of inability to intubate. The limited number of adverse events precluded multivariate adjustments. Study findings should reassure emergency medicine practitioners that system modifications made to intubation processes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic do not appear to be associated with worse outcomes compared to pre-COVID-19 practices., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Published risk tools do not provide possible management options for syncope in the emergency department (ED). Using the 30-day observed risk estimates based on the Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS), we developed personalised risk prediction to guide management decisions., Methods: We pooled previously reported data from two large cohort studies, the CSRS derivation and validation cohorts, that prospectively enrolled adults (≥16 years) with syncope at 11 Canadian EDs between 2010 and 2018. Using this larger cohort, we calculated the CSRS calibration and discrimination, and determined with greater precision than in previous studies the 30-day risk of adjudicated serious outcomes not identified during the index ED evaluation depending on the CSRS and the risk category. Based on these findings, we developed an on-line calculator and pictorial decision aids., Results: 8233 patients were included of whom 295 (3.6%, 95% CI 3.2% to 4.0%) experienced 30-day serious outcomes. The calibration slope was 1.0, and the area under the curve was 0.88 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.91). The observed risk increased from 0.3% (95% CI 0.2% to 0.5%) in the very-low-risk group (CSRS -3 to -2) to 42.7% (95% CI 35.0% to 50.7%), in the very-high-risk (CSRS≥+6) group (Cochrane-Armitage trend test p<0.001). Among the very-low and low-risk patients (score -3 to 0), ≤1.0% had any serious outcome, there was one death due to sepsis and none suffered a ventricular arrhythmia. Among the medium-risk patients (score +1 to+3), 7.8% had serious outcomes, with <1% death, and a serious outcome was present in >20% of high/very-high-risk patients (score +4 to+11) including 4%-6% deaths. The online calculator and the pictorial aids can be found at: https://teamvenk.com/csrs CONCLUSIONS: 30-day observed risk estimates from a large cohort of patients can be obtained for management decision-making. Our work suggests very-low-risk and low-risk patients may be discharged, discussion with patients regarding investigations and disposition are needed for medium-risk patients, and high-risk patients should be hospitalised. The online calculator, accompanied by pictorial decision aids for the CSRS, may assist in discussion with patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) evolved between pandemic waves. Our objective was to compare treatments, acute care utilization, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients presenting to emergency departments (ED) across pandemic waves., Methods: This observational study enrolled consecutive eligible COVID-19 patients presenting to 46 EDs participating in the Canadian COVID-19 ED Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) between March 1 and December 31, 2020. We collected data by retrospective chart review. Our primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included treatments, hospital and ICU admissions, ED revisits and readmissions. Logistic regression modeling assessed the impact of pandemic wave on outcomes., Results: We enrolled 9,967 patients in 8 provinces, 3,336 from the first and 6,631 from the second wave. Patients in the second wave were younger, fewer met criteria for severe COVID-19, and more were discharged from the ED. Adjusted for patient characteristics and disease severity, steroid use increased (odds ratio [OR] 7.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.2-8.9), and invasive mechanical ventilation decreased (OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.4-0.7) in the second wave compared to the first. After adjusting for differences in patient characteristics and disease severity, the odds of hospitalization (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.6-0.8) and critical care admission (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.6-0.9) decreased, while mortality remained unchanged (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.5-1.1)., Interpretation: In patients presenting to cute care facilities, we observed rapid uptake of evidence-based therapies and less use of experimental therapies in the second wave. We observed increased rates of ED discharges and lower hospital and critical care resource use over time. Substantial reductions in mechanical ventilation were not associated with increasing mortality. Advances in treatment strategies created health system efficiencies without compromising patient outcomes., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04702945., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is a common acute life-threatening complication of poorly controlled diabetes mellitus contributing to considerable mortality and morbidity. Use of standardized treatment protocols improves patient outcomes in the emergency department (ED) for many conditions, but variability in adult DKA treatment protocols has not been assessed across EDs. In this study, we compared DKA treatment protocols from adult EDs across Canada to highlight inconsistencies in recommended DKA management., Methods: ED staff in Canada were solicited for their treatment protocols used to guide acute ED DKA management. Information regarding initial fluid resuscitation and maintenance fluid, potassium replacement, insulin therapy and bicarbonate administration was abstracted from each protocol, collated in a table and compared., Results: Thirty-six unique protocols were obtained representing 85 institutions (40 urban and 45 rural, with a 65.1% response rate) across Canada, with no protocol use for 4 urban centres. Similarities in protocols included the intravenous insulin infusion rate and instructions for switching to subcutaneous insulin. Variability was noted in the rate, amount and type of fluid bolus given (0.5 to 2 L of normal saline or Ringer's lactate over 15 minutes to 2 hours), the criteria determining the amount, potassium supplementation at normo/hypokalemic ranges, when to add dextrose to maintenance fluid, insulin bolus inclusion and bicarbonate administration., Conclusions: This is the first comparison of adult DKA treatment protocols in Canada. Although several common approaches were identified, variability was found in initial fluid boluses, initial insulin bolus and role of bicarbonate, necessitating further study to ensure local DKA protocols reflect current evidence-based best practices for optimal patient clinical outcomes., (Copyright © 2021 Canadian Diabetes Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: While studies have reported factors affecting adherence to diabetic care plans from a chronic disease perspective, no studies have addressed issues with post-discharge adherence facing patients with diabetes after an emergency department (ED) presentation for hyperglycaemia. This study's objectives were to describe patient perspectives on their experience during and after an ED visit for hyperglycaemia and to identify factors that influence postdischarge adherence., Methods: We conducted a qualitative description (QD) study of adult patients who had visited a Canadian ED for hyperglycaemia. Consistent with QD, purposive sampling was utilised, seeking diversity across age, gender and diabetes type. Participants took part in semistructured interviews and thematic analysis was used to identify and describe core themes. Frequent team meetings were held to review the analysis and to develop the final list of themes used to recode the data set. Analytic insights were tracked using reflective memos and an audit trail documented all steps and decisions., Results: 22 patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes were interviewed from June to October 2019. Participants identified several factors that impacted their ability to adhere to discharge plans: communication of instructions, psychosocial factors (financial considerations, shame and guilt, stigma and mental health), access to follow-up care and paediatric to adult care transitions., Conclusions: This study describes the patient experience with the communication of discharge instructions, as well as factors affecting adherence post-ED discharge for hyperglycaemia. Our findings suggest four strategies that could improve the patient experience, improve adherence to discharge plans and potentially decrease the frequency of recurrent ED visits for hyperglycaemia., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SL reports grants and personal fees from Sanofi, grants and personal fees from NovoNordisk and personal fees from Merck outside the submitted work. TS reports personal fees from Sanofi Canada, personal fees from Novo Nordisk, personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants from Janssen, Pharmaceuticals, grants from Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, grants from Medtronic Canada, outside the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP) initiation in emergency departments improves follow-up and survival among patients with opioid use disorder. We aimed to assess self-reported BUP-related practices and attitudes among emergency physicians., Methods: We designed a cross-sectional physician survey by adapting a validated questionnaire on opioid harm reduction practices, attitudes and barriers. We recruited physician leads from 6 Canadian provinces to administer surveys to the staff physicians in their emergency department groups between December 2018 and November 2019. We included academic and community non-locum emergency department staff physicians. We excluded responses from emergency department groups with response rates less than 50% to minimize nonresponse bias. Primary (BUP prescribing practices) and secondary (willingness and attitudes) outcomes were analyzed using descriptive statistics., Results: After excluding 1 group for low response (9/26 physicians), 652 of 798 (81.7%) physicians responded from 22 groups serving 34 emergency departments. Among respondents, 64.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 60.4%-67.8%, emergency department group range 7.1%-100.0%) had prescribed BUP at least once in their career, 38.4% had prescribed it for home initiation and 24.8% prescribed it at least once a month. Overall, 68.9% (95% CI 65.3%-72.4%, emergency department group range 24.1%-97.6%) were willing to administer BUP, 64.2% felt it was a major responsibility and 37.1% felt they understood people who use drugs. Respondents most frequently rated lack of adequate training (58.2%) and lack of time (55.2%) as very important barriers to BUP initiation., Interpretation: Two-thirds of the emergency physicians surveyed prescribed BUP, although only one-quarter did so regularly and one-third prescribed it for home initiation; wide variation between emergency department groups existed. Strategies to increase BUP initiation must address physicians' lack of time and training for BUP initiation and improve their understanding of people who use drugs., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© 2021 CMA Joule Inc. or its licensors.)

Study Objective: We aim to determine incidence and type of adverse events (adverse outcomes related to emergency care) among emergency department (ED) patients discharged with recent-onset atrial fibrillation, acute heart failure, and syncope., Methods: This 5-year prospective cohort study included high-acuity adult patients discharged with the 3 sentinel diagnoses from 6 tertiary care Canadian EDs. We screened all ED visits for eligibility and performed telephone interviews 14 days postdischarge to identify flagged outcomes: death, hospital admission, return ED visit, health care provider visit, and new or worsening symptoms. We created case summaries describing index ED visit and flagged outcomes, and trained emergency physicians reviewed case summaries to identify adverse events. We reported adverse event incidence and rates with 95% confidence intervals and contributing factor themes., Results: Among 4,741 subjects (mean age 70.2 years; 51.2% men), we observed 170 adverse events (3.6 per 100 patients; 95% confidence interval 3.1 to 4.2). Patients discharged with acute heart failure were most likely to experience adverse events (5.3%), followed by those with atrial fibrillation (2.0%) and syncope (0.8%). We noted variation in absolute adverse event rates across sites from 0.7 to 6.0 per 100 patients. The most common adverse event types were management issues, diagnostic issues, and unsafe disposition decisions. Frequent contributing factor themes included failure to recognize underlying causes and inappropriate management of dual diagnoses., Conclusion: Among adverse events after ED discharge for patients with these 3 sentinel cardiovascular diagnoses, we identified quality improvement opportunities such as strengthening dual diagnosis detection and evidence-based clinical practice guideline adherence., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To develop pragmatic recommendations for starting, building and sustaining a program of research in emergency medicine (EM) in Canada at sites with limited infrastructure and/or prior research experience., Methods: At the direction of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) academic section, we assembled an expert panel of 10 EM researchers with experience building programs of research. Using a modified Delphi approach, our panel developed initial recommendations for (1) starting, (2) building, and (3) sustaining a program of research in EM. These recommendations were peer-reviewed by emergency physicians and researchers from each of the panelist's home institutions and tested for face and construct validity, as well as ease of comprehension. The recommendations were then iteratively revised based on feedback and suggestions from peer review and amended again after being presented at the 2020 CAEP academic symposium., Results: Our panel created 15 pragmatic recommendations for those intending to start (formal research training, find mentors, local support, develop a niche, start small), build (funding, build a team, collaborate, publish, expect failure) and sustain (become a mentor, obtain leadership roles, lead national studies, gain influence, prioritize wellness) a program of EM research in centers without an established research culture. Additionally, we suggest four recommendations for department leads aiming to foster a program of research within their departments., Conclusion: These recommendations serve as guidance for centres wanting to establish a program of research in EM.

Background: Emergency physicians lack high-quality evidence for many diagnostic and treatment decisions made for patients with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective is to describe the methods used to collect and ensure the data quality of a multicentre registry of patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected or confirmed COVID-19., Methods: This methodology study describes a population-based registry that has been enrolling consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 since Mar. 1, 2020. Most data are collected from retrospective chart review. Phone follow-up with patients at 30 days captures the World Health Organization clinical improvement scale and contextual, social and cultural variables. Phone follow-up also captures patient-reported quality of life using the Veterans Rand 12-Item Health Survey at 30 days, 60 days, 6 months and 12 months. Fifty participating emergency departments from 8 provinces in Canada currently enrol patients into the registry., Interpretation: Data from the registry of the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network will be used to derive and validate clinical decision rules to inform clinical decision-making, describe the natural history of the disease, evaluate COVID-19 diagnostic tests and establish the real-world effectiveness of treatments and vaccines, including in populations that are excluded or underrepresented in clinical trials. This registry has the potential to generate scientific evidence to inform our pandemic response, and to serve as a model for the rapid implementation of population-based data collection protocols for future public health emergencies., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, no. NCT04702945., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Patrick Fok is a shareholder of Hologic, Merck Pharmaceuticals and Moderna. Brian Rowe is the Scientific Director of the Institute of Circulatory and Respiratory Health at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and reports grants and salary from the CIHR outside the submitted work. Hana Wiemer reports grants and nonfinancial support from Purdue Pharma Canada outside the submitted work. Justin Yan reports grants from Government of Ontario Ministry of Colleges and Universities, during the conduct of the study. No other competing interests were declared., (© 2021 Joule Inc. or its licensors.)

Objectives: Few studies have examined the effect of specialized care on patients with diabetes who present to the emergency department (ED) visits for acute hyperglycemia. The objective of this study was to characterize ED patients presenting with hyperglycemia and compare the 30-day outcomes of those followed by specialized diabetes clinics with those not followed. We hypothesized that patients followed by specialized clinics would have improved clinical outcomes compared with those who had no specialized follow up., Methods: We conducted this single-centre retrospective cohort study of adults (≥18 years) with an ED visit for hyperglycemia over 1 year (January to December 2014). Data from ED visits were linked to specialized diabetes clinic records, which contained diabetes-specific clinical data not available in ED visit records. Descriptive statistics were summarized and comparisons between groups were performed, when appropriate., Results: There were 456 patients (55.0% men; mean age, 47.7 years; 46.3% with type 1 diabetes) with 250 followed by the specialized diabetes clinics. The 206 patients who were not followed by the diabetes clinics (45%) were more likely to have a recurrent hyperglycemia ED visit (32.5% vs 9.6%, p<0.001) and to require hospitalization for hyperglycemia (14.1% vs 5.2%, p=0.001) within 30 days of initial presentation., Conclusions: Patients followed by specialized diabetes clinics had fewer recurrent ED visits and hospital admissions for hyperglycemia at 30 days compared with those not followed, suggesting that greater continuity of care between endocrinology and emergency medicine may help reduce these adverse outcomes for patients with diabetes., (Copyright © 2020 Canadian Diabetes Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The benefit of hospital admission after emergency department evaluation for syncope is unclear. We sought to determine the association between hospital admission and detection of serious adverse events, and whether this varied according to the Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS)., Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicentre prospective cohort of patients assessed in the emergency department for syncope. We compared patients admitted to hospital and discharged patients, using propensity scores to match 1:1 for risk of a serious adverse event. The primary outcome was detection of a serious adverse event in hospital for admitted patients or within 30 days after emergency department disposition for discharged patients., Results: We included 8183 patients, of whom 743 (9.1%) were admitted; 658/743 (88.6%) were matched. Admitted patients had higher odds of detection of a serious adverse event (odds ratio [OR] 5.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.3-7.4), nonfatal arrhythmia (OR 5.1, 95% CI 2.9-8.8) and nonarrhythmic serious adverse event (OR 6.3, 95% CI 2.9-13.5). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in death (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.4-2.7) or detection of ventricular arrhythmia (OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.7-6.0). Differences between admitted and discharged patients in detection of serious adverse events were greater for those with a CSRS indicating medium to high risk ( p = 0.04)., Interpretation: Patients with syncope were more likely to have serious adverse events identified within 30 days if they were admitted to hospital rather than discharged from the emergency department. However, the benefit of hospital admission is low for patients at low risk of a serious adverse event., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Lisa Calder is a paid employee of the Canadian Medical Protective Association. Venkatesh Thiruganasambandamoorthy received an honorarium and travel expenses for attending a 2-day focus group on syncope sponsored by Medtronic. No other competing interests were declared., (© 2020 Joule Inc. or its licensors.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: Ashish Gupta reports receiving reimbursement of travel- and stay-related expenses from the Northern Ontario Academic Medical Association grant, to attend a meeting for this work. No other competing interests were declared.

Importance: The management of patients with syncope in the emergency department (ED) is challenging because no robust risk tool available has been recommended for clinical use., Objective: To validate the Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) in a new cohort of patients with syncope to determine its ability to predict 30-day serious outcomes not evident during index ED evaluation., Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective multicenter cohort study conducted at 9 EDs across Canada included patients 16 years and older who presented to EDs within 24 hours of syncope. Patients were enrolled from March 2014 to April 2018., Main Outcomes and Measures: Baseline characteristics, CSRS predictors, and 30-day adjudicated serious outcomes, including arrhythmic (arrhythmias, interventions for arrhythmia, or unknown cause of death) and nonarrhythmic (myocardial infarction, structural heart disease, pulmonary embolism, or hemorrhage) serious outcomes, were collected. Calibration and discrimination characteristics for CSRS validation were calculated., Results: A total of 3819 patients were included (mean [SD] age 53.9 [22.8] years; 2088 [54.7%] female), of whom 139 (3.6%) experienced 30-day serious outcomes, including 13 patients (0.3%) who died. In the validation cohort, there were no differences between the predicted and observed risk, the calibration slope was 1.0, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88-0.93). The empirical probability of a 30-day serious outcome during validation was 3.64% (95% CI, 3.09%-4.28%) compared with the model-predicted probability of 3.17% (95% CI, 2.66%-3.77%; P = .26). The proportion of patients with 30-day serious outcomes increased from 3 of 1631 (0.3%) in the very-low-risk group to 40 of 78 (51.3%) in the very-high-risk group (Cochran-Armitage trend test P < .001). There was a similar significant increase in the serious outcome subtypes with increasing CSRS risk category. None of the very-low-risk and low-risk patients died or experienced ventricular arrhythmia. At a threshold score of -1 (2145 of 3819 patients), the CSRS sensitivity and specificity were 97.8% (95% CI, 93.8%-99.6%) and 44.3% (95% CI, 42.7%-45.9%), respectively., Conclusions and Relevance: The CSRS was successfully validated and its use is recommended to guide ED management of patients when serious causes are not identified during index ED evaluation. Very-low-risk and low-risk patients can generally be discharged, while brief hospitalization can be considered for high-risk patients. We believe CSRS implementation has the potential to improve patient safety and health care efficiency.

Objectives: One in four cases of acute aortic syndrome are missed. This national survey examined Canadian Emergency physicians' opinion on risk stratification, the need for a clinical decision aid to risk stratify patients, and the required sensitivity of such a tool., Methods: We surveyed 1,556 members of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. We used a modified Dillman technique with a prenotification email and up to three survey attempts using electronic mail. Physicians were asked 21 questions about demographics, importance of certain high-risk features, investigation options, threshold for investigation, and if a clinical decision tool is required., Results: We had a response rate of 32%. Respondents were 66% male, and 49% practicing >10 years, with 59% in an academic teaching hospital. A total of 93% reported a need for a clinical decision aid to risk stratify for acute aortic syndrome. A total of 99.6% of physicians were pragmatic accepting a non-zero miss-rate, two-thirds accepting <1%, and the remaining accepting a higher miss-rate., Conclusions: Our national survey determined that emergency physicians would use a highly sensitive clinical decision aid to determine which patients are at low, medium, or high-risk for acute aortic syndrome. The majority of clinicians have a low threshold (<1%) for investigating for acute aortic syndrome, but accept that a zero miss-rate is not feasible.

Objectives: Following release by emergency department (ED) for acute heart failure (AHF), returns to ED represent important adverse health outcomes. The objective of this study was to document relapse events and factors associated with return to ED in the 14-day period following release by ED for patients with AHF., Methods: The primary outcome was the number of return to ED for patients who were release by ED after the initial visit, for any related medical problem within 14 days of this initial ED visit., Results: Return visits to the EDs occurred in 166 (20%) patients. Of all patients who returned to ED within the 14-day period, 77 (47%) were secondarily admitted to the hospital. The following factors were associated with return visits to ED: past medical history of percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft (aOR=1.51; 95% CIs [1.01-2.24]), current use of antiarrhythmics medications (1.96 [1.05-3.55]), heart rate above 80 /min (1.89 [1.28-2.80]), systolic blood pressure below 140 mm Hg (1.67[1.14-2.47]), oxygen saturation (SaO2) above 96% (1.58 [1.08-2.31]), troponin above the upper reference limit of normal (1.68 [1.15-2.45]), and chest X-ray with pleural effusion (1.52 [1.04-2.23])., Conclusions: Many heart failure patients (i.e. 1 in 5 patients) are released from the ED and then suffer return to ED. Patients with multiple medical comorbidities, and those with abnormal initial vital signs are at increased risk for return to ED and should be identified.