Search

Case Presentation: In this case presentation, an 84-year-old male with Fitzpatrick type IV skin tone experienced blistering due to bullous pemphigoid (BP), first on the distal upper left extremity and then on the distal lower extremities, chest, and back. These symptoms resulted in three visits to the emergency department within a month, as well as an episode of hospitalization. Despite treatment, the blistering did not resolve until future outpatient care with dermatology.Discussion: Bullous pemphigoid is a rare autoimmune disease where autoantibodies target hemidesmosomal proteins causing basement membrane destruction and tense subepithelial bullae with pruritus. While uncommon, the incidence of BP is increasing. Bullous pemphigoid tends to affect older adults, appearing as a rash prior to bullae formation on the abdomen, extremities, groin, axillae, or mucosa. Bullous pemphigoid may also be drug-related with atypical symptoms. Diagnosis of BP should be based on immunopathology, and initial treatment of BP is through corticosteroid or doxycycline.

Case Presentation: We describe a middle-aged male presenting to the emergency department with bilateral shoulder pain, holding both arms in abduction after trauma. Radiographs demonstrated a bilateral inferior dislocation of the glenohumeral joints consistent with luxatio erecta humeri.Discussion: We review the clinical presentation of luxatio erecta and its complications. We also describe the characteristic presentation on radiographs. Our case illustrates the hallmark findings of luxatio erecta of an abducted humeral shaft parallel to the scapular spine.

Case Presentation: We describe an elderly male presenting to the emergency department with shortness of breath that progressed to hypoxic respiratory failure. Radiography and computed tomography findings were suggestive of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).Discussion: We review the clinical presentation of COVID-19 and its complications. We also describe the characteristic presentation of COVID-19 on imaging. Our case illustrates the hallmark findings of bilateral and peripheral ground-glass opacities of COVID-19.

Introduction: Most medical schools teach cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during the final year in course curriculum to prepare students to manage the first minutes of clinical emergencies. Little is known regarding the optimal method of instruction for this critical skill. Simulation has been shown in similar settings to enhance performance and knowledge. We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of high-fidelity simulation training vs. standard manikin training for teaching medical students the American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for high-quality CPR.  Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, parallel-arm study of 70 fourth-year medical students to either simulation (SIM) or standard training (STD) over an eight-month period. SIM group learned the AHA guidelines for high-quality CPR via an hour session that included a PowerPoint lecture with training on a high-fidelity simulator. STD group learned identical content using a low-fidelity Resusci Anne® CPR manikin. All students managed a simulated cardiac arrest scenario with primary outcome based on the AHA guidelines definition of high-quality CPR (specifies metrics for compression rate, depth, recoil, and compression fraction). Secondary outcome was time to emergency medical services (EMS) activation. We analyzed data via Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test. Outcomes were performed on a simulated cardiac arrest case adapted from the AHA Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) SimMan® Scenario manual. Results: Students in the SIM group performed CPR that more closely adhered to the AHA guidelines of compression depth and compression fraction. Mean compression depth was 4.57 centimeters (cm) (95% confidence interval [CI] [4.30-4.82]) for SIM and 3.89 cm (95% CI [3.50-4.27]) for STD, p=0.02.  Mean compression fraction was 0.724 (95% CI [0.699-0.751]) for SIM group and 0.679 (95% CI [0.655-0.702]) for STD, p=0.01. There was no difference for compression rate or recoil between groups. Time to EMS activation was 24.7 seconds (s) (95% CI [15.7-40.8]) for SIM group and 79.5 s (95% CI [44.8-119.6]) for STD group, p=0.007.  Conclusion: High-fidelity simulation training is superior to low-fidelity CPR manikin training for teaching fourth-year medical students implementation of high-quality CPR for chest compression depth and compression fraction.

Introduction: Our goal was to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of using telesimulation to deliver an emergency medical services (EMS) course on mass casualty incident (MCI) training to healthcare providers overseas.Methods: We conducted a feasibility study to establish the process for successful delivery of educational content to learners overseas via telesimulation over a five-month period. Participants were registrants in an EMS course on MCI triage broadcast from University of California, Irvine Medical Simulation Center. The intervention was a Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START) course. The primary outcome was successful implementation of the course via telesimulation. The secondary outcome was an assessment of participant thoughts, feelings, and attitudes via a qualitative survey. We also sought to obtain quantitative data that would allow for the assessment of triage accuracy. Descriptive statistics were used to express the percentage of participants with favorable responses to survey questions.Results: All 32 participants enrolled in the course provided a favorable response to all questions on the survey regarding their thoughts, feelings, and attitudes toward learning via telesimulation with wearable/mobile technology. Key barriers and challenges identified included dependability of Internet connection, choosing appropriate software platforms to deliver content, and intercontinental time difference considerations. The protocol detailed in this study demonstrated the successful implementation and feasibility of providing education and training to learners at an off-site location.Conclusion: In this feasibility study, we were able to demonstrate the successful implementation of an intercontinental MCI triage course using telesimulation and wearable/mobile technology. Healthcare providers expressed a positive favorability toward learning MCI triage via telesimulation. We were also able to establish a process to obtain quantitative data that would allow for the calculation of triage accuracy for further experimental study designs.

Objectives We sought to further determine whether cognitive test results changed for advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) taught in the team-based learning/flipped classroom format (TBL/FC) versus a lecture-based (LB) control. Methods We delivered 2010 ACLS to two classes of fourth-year medical students in the TBL/FC format (2015-2016), compared to three classes in the LB format (2012-2014). There were 27.5 hours of instruction for the TBL/FC model (TBL - 10.5 hours, podcasts - nine hours, small-group simulation - eight hours), and 20 hours (lectures - 12 hours, simulation - eight hours) in LB. We taught TBL for 13 cardiac cases while LB had none. Didactic content and seven simulated cases were the same in lecture (2012-2014) or in podcast formats (2015-2016). Testing was the same using 50 multiple-choice (MC) format questions, 20 rhythm-matching questions, and seven fill-in management of simulated cases. Results Some 468 students enrolled in the course 259 (55.4%) in the LB format in 2012-2014, and 209 (44.6%) in the TBL/FC format in 2015-2016. The scores for two out of three tests (MC and fill-in) increased with TBL/FC. Combined, median scores increased from 93.5% (IQR 90.6, 95.4) to 95.1% (92.5, 96.8, p = 0.0001). More students did not pass one of three tests with LB versus TBL/FC (24.7% versus 18.2%), and two or three parts of the test (8.1% versus 4.3%, p = 0.01). On the contrary, 77.5% passed all three with TBL/FC versus 67.2% with LB (change 10.3%, 95% CI 2.2%-18.2%). Conclusion TBL/FC teaching for ACLS improved written test results compared with the LB format.

Pregnancy can obscure signs and symptoms of acute appendicitis, making diagnosis challenging. Furthermore, avoiding radiation-based imaging due to fetal risk limits the diagnostic options clinicians have. Once appendicitis has been diagnosed, performing appendectomies has been the more commonly accepted course of action, but conservative, nonsurgical approaches are now being considered. This report describes the latest recommendations from different fields and organizations for the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis during pregnancy.

Clinicians, institutions, healthcare networks, and policymakers use outcomes reported in clinical trials as the basis for medical decision-making when managing individual patients or populations. Therefore, the choice of a valid primary endpoint is crucial for randomized controlled trials (RCT) to demonstrate efficacy of new therapies. Recent improvements in treatment, however, have led to a decline in the morbidity and mortality of several common diseases, resulting in a reduction in relevant outcomes that can be used as clinical trial endpoints. Composite endpoints have been used as a solution to maintain the feasibility of RCTs, particularly when facing low event rates, high cost, and long follow-up. However, the benefits of using composite endpoints must be weighed against the risks of misinterpretation by clinicians and policymakers, as incorrect interpretation may have a detrimental effect on patients and populations. This paper defines a composite endpoint, discusses the rationale for its use, and provides a practical approach to interpreting results to aid in medical decision-making.

A 38-year-old female seasoned marathon runner presented to the emergency department (ED) with increasing right lower extremity pain after running two mid-distance races in one weekend. The patient had previously run many two-day races and longer distances, but recently had gainedweight and had not been training.  This case report details her presenting symptoms, evaluation, review of the literature, and treatment with attention to the factors that led to the development of herpathologies.

The updated American Heart Association (AHA)/American Stroke Association (ASA) Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke were published in January 2018.1 The purpose of the guidelines is to provide an up-to-date, comprehensive set of recommendations for clinicians caring for adult patients with acute arterial ischemic stroke in a single document. The guidelines detail new and updated recommendations that reflect and incorporate the most recent literature in the evaluation and management of acute ischemic stroke. Some sections of the latest guidelines have sparked debate in the medical community.Debate with regard to deciding the optimal diagnostic and treatment strategy for patients is healthy and anticipated with the release of new medical literature or recommendations. However, what is somewhat puzzling and unanticipated with the release of these new guidelines is that within two months of their release the AHA/ASA rescinded its recently released guidelines, publishing a “correction” in which several parts of the document have been deleted.2 An action such as this at the guideline level is unprecedented in recent history and has left stakeholders in the medical community somewhat confused as to the rationale for its occurrence. This article will inform the emergency medicine (EM) healthcare professional of the recent correction of the updated stroke guidelines, identify which sections have been removed (deleted), and will provide a brief summary of the pertinent updates (that have not been deleted) to the 2018 stroke guidelines that have particular relevance to the EM community.

ObjectiveThe objective was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of telesimulation versus standard simulation in teaching medical students the management of critically ill patients.MethodsProspective, randomized crossover study of 32 fourth-year medical students at a university medical simulation center. Students were randomized to the standard simulation (SIM) or telesimulation (TeleSIM) group between September 2014 and February 2015. The SIM group experience included participating in a live, fully immersive simulation case followed by debriefing with their SIM cohort and a live TV Internet connection to the TeleSIM group. The TeleSIM group experience included remotely observing the live simulation case at an off-site location, followed by a shared group debriefing via live TV Internet connection. Subject assessment was performed with a written evaluation tool. During a second instructional session, the students crossed over and participated in a different simulation scenario and assessment. Mean evaluation scores were calculated along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and were analyzed via linear regression. Our secondary outcome was a survey evaluating the perceptions and attitudes held between the two simulation modalities.ResultsOf 33 eligible students, 32 participated in the study (97.0%). We found no significant difference in the mean evaluation scores of the two groups: SIM group mean = 96.6% (95% CI = 94.5%-98.6%) and TeleSIM group mean = 96.8% (95% CI = 94.8%-98.9%). We also found no significant difference in the favorability of teaching modality (TeleSIM vs. SIM) on the survey.ConclusionIn our prospective randomized crossover study evaluating telesimulation versus standard simulation, we found no significant difference in evaluation scores among the two groups. There was also no significant difference found in the favorability of one teaching modality on a posteducational session survey. Our data support and highlight the capability of telesimulation to provide educational benefit to learners who do not have direct access to simulation resources.

Blunt cardiac injury encompasses multiple injuries, including contusion, acute valvular disorders, and chamber rupture.Blunt traumatic cardiac rupture is a very rare occurrence accounting for 0.5% of blunt trauma cases with a very high mortality rate.Coexisting pericardial rupture in patients with cardiac rupture obscures the diagnosis and contributes to mortality.False negative pericardial ultrasound secondary to a concomitant pericardial laceration and subsequent decompression of the cardiac hemorrhage into the ipsilateral pleural space is extremely rare and has only been recently described in the literature.This image depicts a case of traumatic right ventrictular rupture from blunt cardiac injury and highlights the importance of considering an underlying cardiac injury in the presence of a negative FAST pericardial window in patients with a traumatic hemothorax.

Clinicians, institutions, and policy makers use results from randomized controlled trials to makedecisions regarding therapeutic interventions for their patients and populations. Knowing the effectthe intervention has on patients in clinical trials is critical for making both individual patient as well aspopulation-based decisions. However, patients in clinical trials do not always adhere to the protocol.Excluding patients from the analysis who violated the research protocol (did not get their intendedtreatment) can have significant implications that impact the results and analysis of a study.Intention-to-treat analysis is a method for analyzing results in a prospective randomized studywhere all participants who are randomized are included in the statistical analysis and analyzedaccording to the group they were originally assigned, regardless of what treatment (if any) theyreceived. This method allows the investigator (or consumer of the medical literature) to draw accurate(unbiased) conclusions regarding the effectiveness of an intervention. This method preserves thebenefits of randomization, which cannot be assumed when using other methods of analysis.The risk of bias is increased whenever treatment groups are not analyzed according to the groupto which they were originally assigned. If an intervention is truly effective (truth), an intention-to-treatanalysis will provide an unbiased estimate of the efficacy of the intervention at the level of adherencein the study. This article will review the “intention-to-treat” principle and its converse, “per-protocol”analysis, and illustrate how using the wrong method of analysis can lead to a significantly biasedassessment of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Metallic corneal foreign bodies (MCFBs) are one of the most common causes of ocular injury presenting to the emergency department. Delays in removal, or forceful attempts to remove the MCFB can lead to infection, further injury to the eye, and worsening of vision. In order to prevent these underlying complications, it is imperative for the medical provider to properly master this technique. As current trends in simulation become more focused on patient safety, task-trainers can provide an invaluable learning experience for residents, medical students and physicians. Models made from bovine eyes, agar plates, gelatin, and corneas created from glass and paraffin wax have been previously been created. One study also used a rubber glove filled with water to simulate intraocular measurement with a Tonopen. However the use of corneas created from ballistics gel for MCFB removal and intraocular pressure measurement has not been studied. We propose a realistic, sustainable, cost-effective MCFB task-trainer to introduce the fundamental skills required for MCFB removal and measurement of intraocular pressure with a Tonopen.  A pilot survey study performed on medical students and emergency medicine resident physicians showed an increase in comfort levels performing both MCFB removal and measurement of intraocular pressure with a Tonopen after using this task-trainer.

n/a

Introduction: Traditional Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) courses are evaluated using written multiple-choice tests. High-fidelity simulation is a widely used adjunct to didactic content, and has been used in many specialties as a training resource as well as an evaluative tool. There are no data to our knowledge that compare simulation examination scores with written test scores for ACLS courses. Objective: To compare and correlate a novel high-fidelity simulation-based evaluation with traditional written testing for senior medical students in an ACLS course.Methods: We performed a prospective cohort study to determine the correlation between simulation-based evaluation and traditional written testing in a medical school simulation center. Students were tested on a standard acute coronary syndrome/ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest scenario. Our primary outcome measure was correlation of exam results for 19 volunteer fourth-year medical students after a 32-hour ACLS-based Resuscitation Boot Camp course. Our secondary outcome was comparison of simulation-based vs. written outcome scores.Results: The composite average score on the written evaluation was substantially higher (93.6%) than the simulation performance score (81.3%, absolute difference 12.3%, 95% CI [10.6-14.0%], p

Background: Packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusion has been shown to increase nosocomial infection risk in the injured population; however, the post-traumatic infectious risk profiles of non-PRBC blood products are less clear. We hypothesized that plasma (fresh frozen plasma [FFP]), platelet (PLT), and cryoprecipitate administration would not be associated with increased rates of nosocomial infections. Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective, matched, case-control study utilizing the American College of Surgeons National Trauma Data Bank data for 2019. We included all patients who received any volume of PRBC within four hours of presentation. Our outcome of interest was any infection. Controls were matched to cases using individual matching with a desired 1:3 case:control ratio. Bivariable analysis according to infection status, and multivariable logistic regression modeling the development of infection were then performed upon the matched data. Results: A total of 1,563 infectious cases were matched to 3,920 non-infectious controls. First four-hour transfusion volumes for FFP, PLT, and cryoprecipitate in the infection group exceeded those in the control group. The first four-hour FFP transfusion volume (per unit odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99–1.04; p = 0.28) and cryoprecipitate transfusion volume (per unit OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99–1.02; p = 0.43) were similar in cases and controls whereas PLT transfusion volume (per unit OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86–0.98; p = 0.01) was lower in cases of infection than in controls. Conclusions: Fresh frozen plasma, PLT, and cryoprecipitate transfusion volumes were not independent risk factors for the development of nosocomial infection in a trauma population. PLT transfusion volume was associated with less infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has published significant data and trends related to the national public health burden associated with trauma and injury. In the United States (U.S.), injury is the leading cause of death for persons aged 1–44 years. In 2008, approximately 30 million injuries resulted in an emergency department (ED) evaluation; 5.4 million (18%) of these patients were transported by Emergency Medical Services (EMS).1 EMS providers determine the severity of injury and begin initial management at the scene. The decisions to transport injured patients to the appropriate hospital are made through a process known as “field triage.” Since 1986, the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) has provided guidance for the field triage process though its “Field Triage Decision Scheme.” In 2005, the CDC, with financial support from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), collaborated with ASC-COT to convene the initial meeting of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage (the Panel) to revise the decision scheme. This revised version was published in 2006 by ASC-COT, and in 2009 the CDC published a detailed description of the scientific rational for revising the field triage criteria entitled, “Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients.”2–3 In 2011, the CDC reconvened the Panel to review the 2006 Guidelines and recommend any needed changes. We present the methodology, findings and updated guidelines from the Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) from the 2011 Panel along with commentary on the burden of injury in the U.S., and the role emergency physicians have in impacting morbidity and mortality at the population level.