Search

Although it is recognised that autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and personality disorders (PDs) have a variety of factors in common, the exact nature of the relationship between ASD and the PDs remains unclear. The overlapping symptom profiles and complexities in developmental trajectories in ASD and PDs can lead to diagnostic uncertainty and to challenges in determining differential diagnoses. Features of ASD and PD can be misattributed and easily lead to misdiagnosis or missed diagnoses in patients who have a diagnosis of ASD, which may impact therapeutic pathways. Since differentiating between ASD and PD is such a complex task with implications for therapeutic approaches, it has been argued that there is a need for additional understanding and markers for facilitating diagnostic procedures. There is an urgent need to explore how clinicians make diagnostic decisions and the challenges they face in forming diagnostic conclusions. Where overlaps exist, it is important to consider how clinicians interpret and attribute certain characteristics within the context of ASD and/or PD diagnoses.

Introduction: English proficiency and race are both independently known to affect surgical access and quality, but relatively little is known about the impact of race and limited English proficiency (LEP) on admission for emergency surgery from the emergency department (ED). Our objective was to examine the influence of race and English proficiency on admission for emergency surgery from the ED.Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study from January 1–December 31, 2019 at a large, quaternary-care urban, academic medical center with a 66-bed ED Level I trauma and burn center. We included ED patients of all self-reported races reporting a preferred language other than English and requiring an interpreter or declaring English as their preferred language (control group). A multivariable logistic regression was fit to assess the association of LEP status, race, age, gender, method of arrival to the ED, insurance status, and the interaction between LEP status and race with admission for surgery from the ED.Results: A total of 85,899 patients (48.1% female) were included in this analysis, of whom 3,179 (3.7%) were admitted for emergent surgery. Regardless of LEP status, patients identifying as Black (odds ratio [OR] 0.456, 95% CI 0.388-0.533; P

Introduction: While emergency department (ED) crowding has deleterious effects on patient care outcomes and operational efficiency, impacts on the experience for patients discharged from the ED are unknown. We aimed to study how patient-reported experience is affected by ED crowding to characterize which factors most impact discharged patient experience. Methods: This institutional review board-exempt, retrospective, cohort study included all discharged adult ED patients July 1, 2020–June 30, 2021 with at least some response data to the the National Research Corporation Health survey, sent to most patients discharged from our large, academic medical center ED. Our query yielded 9,401 unique encounters for 9,221 patients. Based on responses to the summary question of whether the patient was likely to recommend our ED, patients were categorized as “detractors” (scores 0-6) or “non-detractors” (scores 7-10). We assessed the relationship between census and patient experience by 1) computing percentage of detractors within each care area and assessing for differences in census and boarder burden between detractors and non-detractors, and 2) multivariable logistic regression assessing the relationship between likelihood of being a detractor in terms of the ED census and the patient’s last ED care area. A second logistic regression controlled for additional patient- and encounter-specific covariates.  Results: Survey response rate was 24.8%. Overall, 13.9% of responders were detractors. There was a significant difference in the average overall ED census for detractors (average 3.70 more patients physically present at the time of arrival, 95% CI 2.33- 5.07). In unadjusted multivariable analyses, three lower acuity ED care areas showed statistically significant differences of detractor likelihood with changes in patient census. The overall area under the curve (AUC) for the unadjusted model was 0.594 (CI 0.577-0.610). The adjusted model had higher AUC (0.673, CI 0.657- 0.690]; P

Study objectiveThe objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of the clinical signs, symptoms, laboratory investigations, and imaging modalities commonly used in patients with clinically suspected renal colic.MethodsWe conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis according to an a priori, registered protocol (PROSPERO CRD42017055153). A literature search was performed using MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to July 2, 2020. We assessed the risk of bias using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2, calculated likelihood ratios (LRs), and applied a random-effects model for meta-analysis.ResultsAmong 7641 references screened, 76 were included in the systematic review and 53 were included in the meta-analyis. The overall pooled prevalence for ureteral stones was 63% (95% confidence interval [CI], 58%-67%). No individual demographic feature, symptom, or sign when present had an LR+ ≥2.0 for identifying ureterolithiasis. A (Sex, Timing and Origin of pain, race, presence or absence of Nausea, and Erythrocytes) STONE score ≥10 increased (sensitivity 0.49, specificity 0.91, LR 5.3 [95% CI, 4.1-6.7]) and a STONE score

The UK's services for adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are in crisis, with demand outstripping capacity and waiting times reaching unprecedented lengths. Recognition of and treatments for ADHD have expanded over the past two decades, increasing clinical demand. This issue has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite an increase in specialist services, resource allocation has not kept pace, leading to extended waiting times. Underfunding has encouraged growth in independent providers, leading to fragmentation of service provision. Treatment delays carry a human and financial cost, imposing a burden on health, social care and the criminal justice system. A rethink of service procurement and delivery is needed, with multiple solutions on the table, including increasing funding, improving system efficiency, altering the service provision model and clinical prioritisation. However, the success of these solutions hinges on fiscal capacity and workforce issues.

Study objectiveFacemask use is associated with reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Most surveys assessing perceptions and practices of mask use miss the most vulnerable racial, ethnic, and socio-economic populations. These same populations have suffered disproportionate impacts from the pandemic. The purpose of this study was to assess beliefs, access, and practices of mask wearing across 15 urban emergency department (ED) populations.MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study of ED patients from December 2020 to March 2021 at 15 geographically diverse, safety net EDs across the US. The primary outcome was frequency of mask use outside the home and around others. Other outcome measures included having enough masks and difficulty obtaining them.ResultsOf 2,575 patients approached, 2,301 (89%) agreed to participate; nine had missing data pertaining to the primary outcome, leaving 2,292 included in the final analysis. A total of 79% of respondents reported wearing masks "all of the time" and 96% reported wearing masks over half the time. Subjects with PCPs were more likely to report wearing masks over half the time compared to those without PCPs (97% vs 92%). Individuals experiencing homelessness were less likely to wear a mask over half the time compared to those who were housed (81% vs 96%).ConclusionsStudy participants reported high rates of facemask use. Respondents who did not have PCPs and those who were homeless were less likely to report wearing a mask over half the time and more likely to report barriers in obtaining masks. The ED may serve a critical role in education regarding, and provision of, masks for vulnerable populations.

Although computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and pelvis (A/P) can provide crucial information for managing blunt trauma patients, liberal and indiscriminant imaging is expensive, can delay critical interventions, and unnecessarily exposes patients to ionizing radiation. Currently no definitive recommendations exist detailing which adult blunt trauma patients should receive A/P CT imaging and which patients may safely forego CT. Considerable benefit could be realized by identifying clinical criteria that reliably classify the risk of abdominal and pelvic injuries in blunt trauma patients. Patients identified as "very low risk" by such criteria would be free of significant injury, receive no benefit from imaging and therefore could be safely spared the expense and radiation exposure associated with A/P CT. The goal of this two-phase nationwide multicenter observational study is to derive and validate the use of clinical criteria to stratify the risk of injuries to the abdomen and pelvis among adult blunt trauma patients. We estimate that nation-wide implementation of a rigorously developed decision instrument could safely reduce CT imaging of adult blunt trauma patients by more than 20%, and reduce annual radiographic charges by $180 million, while simultaneously expediting trauma care and decreasing radiation exposure with its attendant risk of radiation-induced malignancy. Prior to enrollment we convened an expert panel of trauma surgeons, radiologists and emergency medicine physicians to develop a consensus definition for clinically significant abdominal and pelvic injury. In the first derivation phase of the study, we will document the presence or absence of preselected candidate criteria, as well as the presence or absence of significant abdominal or pelvic injuries in a cohort of blunt trauma victims. Using recursive partitioning, we will examine combinations of these criteria to identify an optimal "very low risk" subset that identifies injuries with a sensitivity exceeding 98%, excludes injury with a negative predictive value (NPV) greater than 98%, and retains the highest possible specificity and potential to decrease imaging. In Phase 2 of the study we will validate the performance of a decision rule based on these criteria among a new cohort of patients to ensure that the criteria retain high sensitivity, NPV and optimal specificity. Validating the sensitivity of the decision instrument with high statistical precision requires evaluations on 317 blunt trauma patients who have significant abdominal-pelvic injuries, which will in turn require evaluations on approximately 6,340 blunt trauma patients. We will estimate potential reductions in CT imaging by counting the number of abdominal-pelvic CT scans performed on "very low risk" patients. Reductions in charges and radiation exposure will be determined by respectively summing radiographic charges and lifetime decreases in radiation morbidity and mortality for all "very low risk" cases. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov trial registration number: NCT04937868.

Study objectiveEmergency departments (EDs) often serve vulnerable populations who may lack primary care and have suffered disproportionate COVID-19 pandemic effects. Comparing patients having and lacking a regular source of medical care and other ED patient characteristics, we assessed COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, reasons for not wanting the vaccine, perceived access to vaccine sites, and willingness to get the vaccine as part of ED care.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional survey conducted from December 10, 2020, to March 7, 2021, at 15 safety net US EDs. Primary outcomes were COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, reasons for vaccine hesitancy, and sites (including EDs) for potential COVID-19 vaccine receipt.ResultsOf 2,575 patients approached, 2,301 (89.4%) participated. Of the 18.4% of respondents who lacked a regular source of medical care, 65% used the ED as their usual source of health care. The overall rate of vaccine hesitancy was 39%; the range among the 15 sites was 28% to 58%. Respondents who lacked a regular source of medical care were more commonly vaccine hesitant than those who had a regular source of medical care (47% versus 38%, 9% difference, 95% confidence interval 4% to 14%). Other characteristics associated with greater vaccine hesitancy were younger age, female sex, Black race, Latinx ethnicity, and not having received an influenza vaccine in the past 5 years. Of the 61% who would accept a COVID-19 vaccine, 21% stated that they lacked a primary physician or clinic at which to receive it; the vast majority (95%) of these respondents would accept the COVID-19 vaccine as part of their care in the ED.ConclusionED patients who lack a regular source of medical care are particularly hesitant regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Most COVID-19 vaccine acceptors would accept it as part of their care in the ED. EDs may play pivotal roles in COVID-19 vaccine messaging and delivery to highly vulnerable populations.