Search

Introduction: Despite the wide availability of clinical decision rules for imaging of the cervical spine after a traumatic injury (eg, NEXUS C-spine rule and Canadian C-spine rule), there is significant overutilization of computed tomography (CT) imaging in patients who are deemed to be at low risk for a clinically significant cervical spine injury by these clinical decision rules. The purpose of this study was to identify the major factors associated with the overuse of CT cervical spine imaging using a logistic regression model.Methods: This was a retrospective review of all adult patients who underwent CT cervical spine imaging for evaluation of a traumatic injury at a tertiary academic emergency department (ED) and three affiliate community EDs in January and February 2019. We performed multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with obtaining CT cervical spine imaging despite low-risk classification by the NEXUS C-spine Rule.Results: A total of 1,051 patients underwent CT cervical spine imaging for traumatic indications during the study period, and 889 patients were included in the analysis. Of these patients, 376 (42.3%) were negative by the NEXUS C-spine rule. Variables that were associated with increased likelihood of unnecessary imaging included age over 65, Emergency Severity Index (ESI) score 2 and 3, arrival as a walk-in, and anticoagulation status. Patients who presented to the tertiary academic ED had a significantly lower likelihood of unnecessary imaging. Twenty-one patients (2.4%) were found to have cervical spine fractures on imaging, two of whom were negative by the NEXUS C-spine rule, but neither had a clinically significant fracture.Conclusion: Cervical spine imaging is vastly overused in patients presenting to the ED with traumatic injuries, as adjudicated using the NEXUS C-spine rule as a reference standard. Older age, ESI level, arrival as a walk-in, and taking anticoagulation drugs were associated with overutilization of CT imaging. Conversely, presenting to the tertiary academic ED was associated with a lower likelihood of undergoing unnecessary imaging. This model can guide future interventions to optimize ED CT utilization and minimize unnecessary testing.

Introduction: The emergency department (ED) is a critical service area for patients living with disabilities in the United States. Despite this, there is limited research on best practices from the patient experience regarding accommodation and accessibility for those with disabilities. In this study we investigate the ED experience from the perspective of patients living with physical and cognitive disability, as well as visual impairment and blindness, to better understand the barriers to accessibility in the ED for these populations.Methods: Twelve individuals with either physical or cognitive disabilities, visual impairments or blindness were interviewed regarding their ED experiences, particularly related to accessibility. Interviews were transcribed and coded for qualitative analysis with generation of significant themes relating to accessibility in the ED.Results: Major themes from coded analysis were as follows: 1) inadequate communication between staff and  patients with visual impairments and physical disabilities; 2) the need for electronic delivery for after-visit summaries for individuals with cognitive and visual disabilities; 3) the importance of mindful listening and patience by healthcare staff; 4) the role of increased hospital support including greeters and volunteers; and 5) comprehensive training with both prehospital and hospital staff around assistive devices and services.Conclusion: This study serves as an important first step toward improving the ED environment to ensure accessibility and inclusivity for patients presenting with various types of disabilities. Implementing specific training, policies, and infrastructure changes may improve the experiences and healthcare of this population.

Introduction: Prolonged emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS) has been shown to adversely affect patient care. We sought to determine factors associated with ED LOS via analysis of a large, national, ED operations database.Methods: We performed retrospective, multivariable, linear regression modeling using the 2019 Emergency Department Benchmarking Alliance survey results to identify associated factors of ED LOS for admitted and discharged patients.Results: A total of 1,052 general and adult-only EDs responded to the survey. Median annual volume was 40,946. The median admit and discharge LOS were 289 minutes and 147 minutes, respectively. R-squared values for the admit and discharge models were 0.63 and 0.56 with out-of-sample R-squared values of 0.54 and 0.59, respectively. Both admit and discharge LOS were associated with academic designation, trauma level designation, annual volume, proportion of ED arrivals occurring via emergency medical services, median boarding, and use of a fast track. Additionally, admit LOS was associated with transfer-out percentage, and discharge LOS was associated with percentage of high Current Procedural Terminology, percentage of patients

Introduction: Early recognition and pre-notification by emergency medical services (EMS) improves the timeliness of emergency department (ED) stroke care; however, little is known regarding the effects on care should EMS providers fail to pre-notify. We sought to determine if potential stroke patients transported by EMS, but for whom EMS did not provide pre-notification, suffer delays in ED door-to-stroke-team activation (DTA) as compared to the other available cohort of patients for whom the ED is not pre-notified–those arriving by private vehicle.Methods: We queried our prospective stroke registry to identify consecutive stroke team activation patients over 12 months and retrospectively reviewed the electronic health record for each patient to validate registry data and abstract other clinical and operational data. We compared patients arriving by private vehicle to those arriving by EMS without pre-notification, and we employed a multivariable, penalized regression model to assess the probability of meeting the national DTA goal of ≤15 minutes, controlling for a variety of clinical factors.Results: Our inclusion criteria were met by 200 patients. Overall performance of the regression model was excellent (area under the curve 0.929). Arrival via EMS without pre-notification, compared to arrival by private vehicle, was associated with an adjusted risk ratio of 0.55 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.96) for achieving DTA ≤ 15 minutes. Conclusion: Our single-center data demonstrate that potential stroke patients arriving via EMS without pre-notification are less likely to meet the national DTA goal than patients arriving via other means. These data suggest a negative, unintended consequence of otherwise highly successful EMS efforts to improve stroke care, the root of which may be ED staff over-reliance on EMS for stroke recognition.

Introduction: Emergency department (ED) crowding adversely affects multiple facets of high-quality care. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts mandates specific, hospital action plans to reduce ED boarding via a mechanism termed “Code Help.” Because implementation appears inconsistent even when hospital conditions should have triggered its activation, we hypothesized that compliance with the Code Help policy would be associated with reduction in ED boarding time and total ED length of stay (LOS) for admitted patients, compared to patients seen when the Code Help policy was not followed. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of data collected from electronic, patient-care, timestamp events and from a prospective Code Help registry for consecutive adult patients admitted from the ED at a single academic center during a 15-month period. For each patient, we determined whether the concurrent hospital status complied with the Code Help policy or violated it at the time of admission decision. We then compared ED boarding time and overall ED LOS for patients cared for during periods of Code Help policy compliance and during periods of Code Help policy violation, both with reference to patients cared for during normal operations. Results: Of 89,587 adult patients who presented to the ED during the study period, 24,017 (26.8%) were admitted to an acute care or critical care bed. Boarding time ranged from zero to 67 hours 30 minutes (median 4 hours 31 minutes). Total ED LOS for admitted patients ranged from 11 minutes to 85 hours 25 minutes (median nine hours). Patients admitted during periods of Code Help policy violation experienced significantly longer boarding times (median 20 minutes longer) and total ED LOS (median 46 minutes longer), compared to patients admitted under normal operations. However, patients admitted during Code Help policy compliance did not experience a significant increase in either metric, compared to normal operations.Conclusion: In this single-center experience, implementation of the Massachusetts Code Help regulation was associated with reduced ED boarding time and ED LOS when the policy was consistently followed, but there were adverse effects on both metrics during violations of the policy.

Introduction: Medical resuscitations in rugged prehospital settings require emergency personnel to perform high-risk procedures in low-resource conditions. Just-in-Time Guidance (JITG) utilizing augmented reality (AR) guidance may be a solution. There is little literature on the utility of AR-mediated JITG tools for facilitating the performance of emergent field care. Study Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility and efficacy of a novel AR-mediated JITG tool for emergency field procedures. Methods: Emergency medical technician-basic (EMT-B) and paramedic cohorts were randomized to either video training (control) or JITG-AR guidance (intervention) groups for performing bag-valve-mask (BVM) ventilation, intraosseous (IO) line placement, and needle-decompression (Needle-d) in a medium-fidelity simulation environment. For the interventional condition, subjects used an AR technology platform to perform the tasks. The primary outcome was participant task performance; the secondary outcomes were participant-reported acceptability. Participant task score, task time, and acceptability ratings were reported descriptively and compared between the control and intervention groups using chi-square analysis for binary variables and unpaired t-testing for continuous variables. Results: Sixty participants were enrolled (mean age 34.8 years; 72% male). In the EMT-B cohort, there was no difference in average task performance score between the control and JITG groups for the BVM and IO tasks; however, the control group had higher performance scores for the Needle-d task (mean score difference 22%; P =.01). In the paramedic cohort, there was no difference in performance scores between the control and JITG group for the BVM and Needle-d tasks, but the control group had higher task scores for the IO task (mean score difference 23%; P =.01). For all task and participant types, the control group performed tasks more quickly than in the JITG group. There was no difference in participant usability or usefulness ratings between the JITG or control conditions for any of the tasks, although paramedics reported they were less likely to use the JITG equipment again (mean difference 1.96 rating points; P =.02). Conclusions: This study demonstrated preliminary evidence that AR-mediated guidance for emergency medical procedures is feasible and acceptable. These observations, coupled with AR's promise for real-time interaction and on-going technological advancements, suggest the potential for this modality in training and practice that justifies future investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Poor care access and lack of proper triage of medical complaints leads to inappropriate use of acute care resources. Mobile integrated health (MIH) programs may offer a solution by providing adaptable on‐demand care. There is little information describing programs that manage undifferentiated complaints in the community. The objective of this study was to assess the safety and feasibility of an MIH program that responds to the community to manage medical complaints in older adults. Methods: This was a prospective observational study examining a pilot MIH program. Seven ambulatory clinics and their affiliated patients aged 65 and older were oriented to the program and invited to use its services. Visit and follow‐up data for all patients who underwent an MIH visit were abstracted, along with 30‐day follow‐up information. All demographic data and outcomes were reported descriptively. Results: In 21 months, 153 MIH visits were completed, involving 91 patients (mean age 81 years, 60.4% female). The most common chief complaints were generalized weakness (28.8%) and shortness of breath (18.9%). Electrocardiogram (57.5%) and point‐of‐care bloodwork (34.6%) were the most common diagnostic tests performed. Sixteen visits (10.4%) were followed by an emergency department (ED) visit within 72 h. In 11 encounters, the patient was referred to the ED; in five cases, the ED visit was unforeseen. Fifteen patients (9.8%) were admitted to the hospital after an MIH visit. There were two deaths within 30 days following an index visit. Conclusions: An MIH program designed to address the acute complaints of community‐dwelling older adults was feasible and safe, with low rates of unforeseen emergency services utilizations. MIH programs have valuable diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities and may serve to help triage the acute medical needs of patients. Further study is required to validate the efficacy and cost‐effectiveness of MIH programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Board of Directors convened a task force to elucidate the current state of workforce, operational, and educational issues being faced by academic medical centers related to advanced practice providers (APPs). The task force surveyed academic emergency department (ED) chairs and residency program directors (PDs). Methods: The survey was distributed to the Association of Academic Chairs of Emergency Medicine (AACEM)‐member chairs and their respective residency PDs in 2021. We surveyed 125 chairs with their self‐identified PDs. The survey sampled hiring, state‐independent practice laws, scope of practice, teaching and supervision, training opportunities, delegation of procedures between physician learners and APPs, and perceptions of the impact on resident and medical student education. Results: Of the AACEM‐member chairs identified, 73% responded and 47% of PDs responded. Most (98%) employ either physician assistants or nurse practitioners. Among responding departments, 86% report APPs working in fast‐track settings, 80% work in the main ED, and 54% work in the waiting room. In 44% of departments, APPs and residents evaluate patients concurrently, and 2% of respondents reported that APPs manage high‐acuity patients without attending involvement. Two‐thirds of chairs believe that APPs contribute positively to the quality of patient care, while 44% believe that APPs contribute to the academic environment. One‐third of PDs believe that the presence of APPs interferes with resident education. Although 75% of PDs believe that residents require training to work effectively with APPs in the ED, almost half (49%) report zero hours of training around APP supervision or collaborative skills. Conclusions: APPs are ubiquitous across academic EDs. Future research is required for academic ED leaders to balance physician and APP deployment across the academic ED within the context of patient care, resident education, institutional resources, professional development opportunities for APP staff, and standardization of APP EM training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the study of pilot study of prehospital antibiotics for severe sepsis. Topics discussed include Severe forms of sepsis are major contributors to morbidity and mortality worldwide, with mortality rates as high as 25%–60%; and Sepsis with hypotension and septic shock, which we define as sepsis with a systolic blood pressure ≤ 90 mm Hg that is refractory to an initial fluid bolus.

Abstract: Objectives: The societal contribution of emergency care in the United States has been described. The role and impact of academic emergency departments (EDs) has been less clear. Our report summarizes the results of a benchmarking effort specifically focused on academic emergency medicine (EM) practices. Methods: From October through December 2016, the Academy of Academic Administrators of Emergency Medicine (AAAEM) and the Association of Academic Chairs of Emergency Medicine (AACEM) jointly administered a benchmarking survey to allopathic, academic departments and divisions of emergency medicine. Participation was voluntary and nonanonymous. The survey queried various aspects of the three components of the tripartite academic mission: clinical care, education and research, and faculty effort and compensation. Responses reflected a calendar year from July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016. Results: Of 107 eligible U.S. allopathic, academic departments and divisions of emergency medicine, 79 (74%) responded to the survey overall, although individual questions were not always answered by all responding programs. The 79 responding programs reported 6,876,189 patient visits at 97 primary and affiliated academic clinical sites. A number of clinical operations metrics related to the care of these patients at these sites are reported in this study. All responding programs had active educational programs for EM residents, with a median of 37 residents per program. Nearly half of the overall respondents reported responsibility for teaching medical students in mandatory EM clerkships. Fifty‐two programs reported research and publication activity, with a total of $129,494,676 of grant funding and 3,059 publications. Median faculty effort distribution was clinical effort, 66.9%; education effort, 12.7%; administrative effort, 12.0%; and research effort, 6.9%. Median faculty salary was $277,045. Conclusions: Academic EM programs are characterized by significant productivity in clinical operations, education, and research. The survey results reported in this investigation provide appropriate benchmarking for academic EM programs because they allow for comparison of academic programs to each other, rather than nonacademic programs that do not necessarily share the additional missions of research and education and may have dissimilar working environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]