Search

Our move away from a traditional practice model has improved quality metrics and enhanced our financial sustainability.

BACKGROUND Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been published by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) since 1990 to advance evidence-based emergency care. ACEP clinical policies have drawn anecdotal criticism for bias, yet the overall quality of these guidelines has not previously been quantified. We sought to examine ACEP clinical policies using a recognised, validated appraisal instrument: Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II). METHODS Systematic assessment of current ACEP clinical policies was conducted using the AGREE II instrument, which contains 23 appraisal items (scored on a 1-7 scale) in six domains and two overall assessments. Each policy was independently appraised by five trained appraisers. Primary outcomes were AGREE II ratings for each item, domain and "Overall Assessment," and scores were reported as standardised percentages from all five appraisers. Secondary analyses examined associations between AGREE II ratings and policy publication date, strength of underlying evidence and strength of recommendations. Additional analysis examined relationships between domain and "Overall Assessment" ratings. RESULTS Twenty guidelines published from April 2007 to November 2017 were included. Of the six domains, "Scope and Purpose" scored highest (mean 90%) and "Applicability" scored lowest (mean 35%). The four remaining domains ("Stakeholder Involvement," "Rigor of Development," "Clarity of Presentation" and "Editorial Independence") had mean scores of 53%-78%. The mean "Overall Assessment" rating was 69% and was not associated with policy publication date, strength of underlying evidence or strength of recommendations. We found positive associations between "Overall Assessment" ratings and two domains: "Rigor of Development" (r = 0.70) and "Clarity of Presentation" (r = 0.70). CONCLUSIONS Based on validated AGREE II criteria, ACEP clinical policies can be most improved by addressing their application in practice. ACEP clinical policies' overall quality did not improve over the assessed time period and is not explained by the quality of underlying evidence.

Background. Google Glass has been used in a variety of medical settings with promising results. We explored the use and potential value of an asynchronous, near-real time protocol—which avoids transmission issues associated with real-time applications—for recording, uploading, and viewing of high-definition (HD) visual media in the emergency department (ED) to facilitate remote surgical consults. Study Design. First-responder physician assistants captured pertinent aspects of the physical examination and diagnostic imaging using Google Glass’ HD video or high-resolution photographs. This visual media were then securely uploaded to the study website. The surgical consultation then proceeded over the phone in the usual fashion and a clinical decision was made. The surgeon then accessed the study website to review the uploaded video. This was followed by a questionnaire regarding how the additional data impacted the consultation. Results. The management plan changed in 24% (11) of cases after surgeons viewed the video. Five of these plans involved decision making regarding operative intervention. Although surgeons were generally confident in their initial management plan, confidence scores increased further in 44% (20) of cases. In addition, we surveyed 276 ED patients on their opinions regarding concerning the practice of health care providers wearing and using recording devices in the ED. The survey results revealed that the majority of patients are amenable to the addition of wearable technology with video functionality to their care. Conclusions. This study demonstrates the potential value of a medically dedicated, hands-free, HD recording device with internet connectivity in facilitating remote surgical consultation.