Search

Introduction: Inhaled toxins from tobacco smoking, cannabis leaf smoking as well as vaping/e-cigarette products use are known causes of cardio-respiratory injury. While tobacco smoking has decreased among Canadian adults, there are now several other forms of legal inhalant products. While legal, the evidence of benefit and safety of vaping is limited. Of concern, cases of e-cigarette or vaping products use associated lung injury (EVALI) have been accumulating in the U.S. and now in Canada. Despite this, very little is known about the inhalation exposure of emergency department (ED) patients; this study was designed to explore lung health in the ED. Methods: We investigated the prevalence of exposure to vaping, tobacco and cannabis among patients presenting to a Canadian ED from July to November 2019. Ambulatory (CTAS 2 to 5), stable, adult (≥ 17 years) patients were prospectively identified and invited to complete a survey addressing factors related to lung health (previous diagnosis of respiratory conditions and respiratory symptoms at the ED presentation) and information on current exposure to vaping, tobacco and cannabis smoking. Categorical variables are reported as frequencies and percentages; continuous variables are reported as medians with interquartile range (IQR). The study was approved by the Health Research Ethics Board. Results: Overall, 1024 (71%) of 1433 eligible patients completed the survey. The median age was 43.5 (IQR: 29, 60), and 51% were female. A total of 351 (31%) participants reported having been previously diagnosed with ≥1 respiratory conditions, and 177 (17%) were visiting the ED as a result of ≥1 respiratory symptoms (e.g., cough, shortness of breath, wheezing). Daily tobacco smoking was reported by 190 (19%), and 83 (8%) reported using vaping/e-cigarette products. Cannabis use within 30 days was described by 80 (15%) respondents. Exposure to tobacco and vaping products was reported by 39 (4%) participants, 63 (6%) reported using tobacco in combination with cannabis smoking, and 3% reported combining vaping and cannabis use. Conclusion: Patients seeking care in the ED are exposed to a large quantity of inhaled toxins. Vaping products, considered the cause of the most recent epidemic of severe lung injury, are used in isolation and in combination with other smoking products in Canada. These exposures should be documented and may increase the risk of lung health injuries and exacerbations of chronic respiratory conditions.

Introduction: In 2010, Alberta Health Services (AHS) introduced Transition Coordinators (TC), a unique nursing role focused on assessment of elderly patients to support safe discharge home. The objective of this study is to describe patient characteristics to predict safe discharge for seniors (≥65 years of age) and identify barriers that can be used to improve ED outcomes for these patients. Methods: Two trained research assistants conducted a chart review of the TC referral form and the ED Information System (EDIS) for patients seen by TCs between April and June 2017. Information on patient characteristics, existing home care and community services, the index ED visit and subsequent revisits were extracted. Data were entered into a purpose-built database in REDCap. A descriptive analysis was conducted; results are reported as mean ± standard deviation (SD), median (interquartile range [IQR]), or proportions, as appropriate. Results: A total of 1411 patients with TC referral forms were included (779 [55%] female). The majority of these patients were ≥65 (1350 [96%]) with a mean age of 82 ± 9.6. The majority of patients were triaged as a CTAS of 3 (835 [59%]) with the most common reasons for presentation including: shortness of breath (128 [9%]), abdominal pain (94 [6.7%]), and general weakness (81 [5.7%]). Nearly one third of patients (391 [30%]) were already receiving home care services; (96 [7%]) received a new home care referral as a result of their ED visit. Of all the patients, 1111 (79%) had comorbidities (median: 3 [IQR: 1 to 5]). Overall, 38% (n = 536) patients had visited the ED in the 12 months prior to the index with a median of 2 [IQR: 1 to 4) visits. On average, patient's length of stay for their index visits was 12 ± 0.35 hours. Admissions occurred for 599 [42%] patients with delays being common; the mean time between the decision to admit and the patient leaving the ED was 6 hrs ± 0.23. Conclusion: Seniors in the ED are complex patients who experience long lengths of stay and frequent delays in decision-making. Upon discharge, few patients receive referrals to community supports, potentially increasing the likelihood of revisits and readmissions. Future studies should assess whether the presence of TCs is associated with better outcomes in the community.

Introduction: Despite being legal in Canada, the vaporized liquid of vaping systems contains several chemicals presenting unknown risks to lung health and little is known about their use in patients visiting the emergency department (ED). This study explores associations between exposure to inhaled products and respiratory presentations in the ED. Methods: A cross-sectional lung health survey among patients presenting to a Canadian ED was conducted, exploring the association between inhaled toxic exposures (e.g., vaping, cannabis and cigarette smoking) and visits related to respiratory symptoms. Eligible participants were ambulatory (CTAS 2 to 5), stable, adults (≥ 17 years) visiting the ED from July to November, 2019. Results are described as frequencies and percentages (categorical variables) and medians with interquartile range (IQR, continuous variables). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models report associations as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The Health Research Ethics Board approved the study. Results: From 1433 eligible patients, 1024 (71%) completed the survey. The median age was 43.5 (IQR: 29, 60), and 51% were female. Overall, 177 (17%) reported ≥1 respiratory symptoms and 83 (8%) reported using any vaping products. In a univariate regression analysis, exposure to vaping was positively associated with ED visits related to respiratory symptoms (OR 2.11, 95% CI: 1.26 to 3.54). In the multivariate model, vaping and a previous diagnosis of ≥1 respiratory conditions showed positive association with respiratory-related ED visits (OR 1.86, 95% CI: 1.03 to 3.33; and OR 2.13, 95% CI: 1.50 to 3.02, respectively). There was evidence of an additive effect of the combined exposure to cigarettes and vaping and respiratory-related ED visits (OR 3.22, 95% CI: 1.61 to 6.43). Smoking cannabis and cigarettes alone were not associated with increased risk of respiratory-related visits. Conclusion: Using vaping products increased the occurrence of respiratory-related ED visits, particularly in people with pre-existing lung conditions. A dose-response relationship exists where the risk is highest in patients inhaling a combination of toxins. Contrary to previous assumptions, the use of vaping products has a negative impact on lung health.

Introduction: Efforts to engage patients in research when presenting to emergency departments (EDs) have explored the utility of online tools; for example, through QR-based applications. It is unclear whether these are effective strategies for engaging patients in research activities while saving costs of in-person surveys. This study evaluated whether patients would participate in QR codes or short URL-linked surveys available in EDs across Alberta. Methods: A patient waiting room poster was developed as part of a stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial. The waiting room poster was introduced in 15 urban and regional Alberta EDs with a median annual volume of approximately 60,000. A QR-code and short URL were placed on the poster inviting patients to participate in an online survey and evaluate the poster's usefulness and acceptability. Additionally, written discharge instructions, which were part of the intervention materials, were distributed with QR-code and short URL link to surveys for patients to share their ED care experience. Patients were not prompted by any staff or research personnel to encourage use of the QR codes or the short URLs; however, a survey was conducted with ED waiting room patients in 3 urban EDs to ascertain whether they had downloaded a QR reader on their devices and the frequency of use of these applications. Results: Given the stepped-wedge nature of the study, these materials were available for a total of approximately 123 months (3 sites for 13 months, 4 sites for 10 months, 4 sites for 7 months, and 4 sites for 4 months). Over the study period, 15 patients accessed and completed the online survey linked to the QR code or the short URL placed on the posters. No patients completed the online surveys linked to the QR code or the short URL placed on the discharge instructions. The in-person survey conducted within the ED waiting room identified that 34% of respondents had a QR code reader downloaded on their phone (108/316). Of those with a QR reader, 33% reported using the reader at least once within the last 6 months. Conclusion: In this study, few patients downloaded QR readers on their electronic devices while in the ED waiting room. Without prompting, this appears to be an ineffective strategy for engaging patients in emergency medicine research. Other engagement strategies optimizing human resource investment are urgently needed to effectively conduct research in EDs.

Introduction: An increasing number of patients with end-stage diseases present to emergency departments (EDs) for physical, spiritual, psychological and social care. The objective of this study was to identify patients with end-stage diseases with palliative care (PC) needs and document their frequency of ED visits. Methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted in two Canadian EDs. Using a modified palliative care screening tool, volunteer ED physicians were asked to identify adult patients with end-stage, chronic conditions including cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), heart failure (HF), cirrhosis, dementia and/or progressive central nervous system (PCNS) disease. Demographic data were collected from these tools and data regarding patients’ visits in both the 6 months prior to and 30 days following their index visits were collected from the ED Information System. Bivariate analyses were completed using Student's t and chi-square test. Results: A total of 663 patients with end-stage illness were identified; 338 (51%) were female and the median age was 76 (IQR: 63, 85). Cancer was the most common presentation (41%), followed by dementia (23%), COPD (16%), HF (9%), CKD (9%), PCNS disease (9%) and cirrhosis (7%). These patients made a total of 1277 visits in the 6 months prior to and 288 in the 30 days following the index visit. Patients presenting to the EDs with cancer (p = 0.001), cirrhosis (p = 0.005) and CKD (p = 0.03) were more likely to visit an ED in the 6 months prior to their index visit. In contrast, patients presenting with dementia (p < 0.0001) and PCNS disease (p = 0.02) were significantly less likely to present to an ED in the 6 months prior to their index visit. Patients presenting with cirrhosis or CKD had the highest average number of ED visits in the 6 months prior to their index visit (cirrhosis: 4.59 visits, SD: 3.8, p < 0.0001; CKD: 4.39 visits, SD: 3.8, p = 0.0001). Of these patients, those presenting with end-stage cirrhosis were significantly more likely to make a return visit to an ED within 30 days after their index visit (p = 0.014). Conclusion: Cancer is the most common condition for patients with end-stage, chronic illnesses in these EDs. Those presenting with cirrhosis or CKD are at a significantly higher risk of repeat visits to the EDs. This study has identified potential deficits in care and can serve as a baseline for future intervention studies.

Background Multifaceted interventions driven by the needs of patients and providers can help move evidence into practice more rapidly. This study engaged both patients and primary care providers (PCPs) to help design novel opinion leader (OL)-based interventions for patients with acute asthma seen in emergency departments (EDs). Methods A mixed methods design was employed. In phase I, we invited convenience samples of patients with asthma presenting to the ED and PCPs to participate in a survey. Perceptions with respect to: a) an ideal OL-profile for asthma guidance; and b) content, style and delivery methods of OL-based interventions in acute asthma directed from the ED were collected. In phase II, we conducted focus groups to further explore preferences and expectations for such interventions with attention to barriers and facilitators for implementation. Results Overall, 54 patients completed the survey; 39% preferred receiving guidance from a respirologist, 44% during their ED visit and 56% through individual discussions. In addition, 55% expressed interest in having PCP follow-up within a week of ED discharge. A respirologist was identified as the ideal OL-profile by 59% of the 39 responding PCPs. All expressed interest in receiving notification of their patients’ ED presentation, most within a week and including diagnosis and ED/post ED-treatment. Personalized, guideline-based, recommendations were considered to be the ideal content by the majority; 39% requested this guidance through a pamphlet faxed to their offices. In the focus groups, patients and PCPs recognized the importance of health professional liaisons in transitions in care; patient anxiety and PCP time constraints were identified as potential barriers for ED-educational information uptake and proper post-ED follow-up, respectively. Conclusions Engaging patients and PCPs yielded actionable information to tailor OL-based multifaceted interventions for acute asthma in the ED. We identified potential facilitators for the implementation of such interventions (e.g., patient interaction with alternative health care professionals who could facilitate transitions in asthma care between the ED and the primary care setting), and for the provision of post discharge self-management education (e.g., consideration of the first week of ED discharge as a practical time frame for this intervention). Prioritization of identified barriers (e.g., lack of PCP involvement) could be addressed by the identification of potential early adopters in practice environments (e.g., clinicians with special interest in asthma).

ObjectivesChoosing Wisely Canada (CWC) is an initiative to encourage patient-physician discussions about the appropriate, evidence based use of medical tests, procedures and treatments. We present the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians’ (CAEP) top five list of recommendations, and the process undertaken to generate them.MethodsThe CAEP Expert Working Group (EWG) generated a candidate list of 52 tests, procedures, and treatments in emergency medicine whose value to care was questioned. This list was distributed to CAEP committee chairs, revised, and then divided and randomly allocated to 107 Canadian emergency physicians (EWG nominated) who voted on each item based on: action-ability, effectiveness, safety, economic burden, and frequency of use. The EWG discussed the items with the highest votes, and generated the recommendations by consensus.ResultsThe top five CAEP CWC recommendations are: 1) Don’t order CT head scans in adults and children who have suffered minor head injuries (unless positive for a validated head injury clinical decision rule); 2) Don’t prescribe antibiotics in adults with bronchitis/asthma and children with bronchiolitis; 3) Don’t order lumbosacral spinal imaging in patients with non-traumatic low back pain who have no red flags/pathologic indicators; 4) Don’t order neck radiographs in patients who have a negative examination using the Canadian C-spine rules; and 5) Don’t prescribe antibiotics after incision and drainage of uncomplicated skin abscesses unless extensive cellulitis exists.ConclusionsThe CWC recommendations for emergency medicine were selected using a mixed methods approach. This top 5 list was released at the CAEP Conference in June 2015 and should form the basis for future implementation efforts.

Study aim Anaphylaxis requires prompt recognition and management to improve patient outcomes. This study examined the diagnosis and treatment of anaphylactic reactions by the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in a Canadian urban centre. Methods Electronic patient care records (ePCRs), identifying allergy-related calls in the Edmonton-Zone for the year 2011, were retrospectively reviewed to confirm anaphylaxis diagnosis and record treatments. Data were abstracted and entered into the REDCap electronic platform. Descriptive and multivariable analyses were performed. Pre-hospital management included any care provided by paramedic personnel and/or first-aid treatment received prior to EMS arrival. Results From 481 identified allergy-related case records, 136 (28%) met guideline criteria for anaphylaxis. Seventy-six (56%) of these confirmed cases were deemed high acuity by medical dispatchers. Self-medication and bystander first-aid was recorded in 60 (44%) anaphylactic events; 34 (25%) received epinephrine. Paramedics administered epinephrine in an additional 49 cases (36%); only 7% received all three primary pre-hospital anaphylaxis treatments: epinephrine, corticosteroids, and antihistamines. Factors associated with pre-hospital epinephrine administration included: previous episode of anaphylaxis (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 4.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.30, 19.21); administration of corticosteroids by bystanders or EMS personnel (aOR = 3.8, 95% CI: 1.36, 10.65); and transport severity (aOR = 3.2, 95% CI: 1.21, 8.36). Conclusion Paramedics in this region demonstrated higher use of epinephrine than reported elsewhere; however, almost half of all patients meeting anaphylaxis criteria did not receive pre-hospital epinephrine. Instead, more patients received antihistamines. Efforts to improve adherence to anaphylaxis protocols and guidelines appear warranted.

Introduction: Patients with concussion frequently present to the emergency department (ED). Studies of athletes and children indicate that concussion symptoms are often more severe and prolonged in females compared with males. To-date, study of sex-based concussion differences in general adult populations have been limited. This study examined sex-based differences in concussion outcomes. Methods: Adult (>17 years) patients presenting to one of three urban EDs in Edmonton, Alberta with Glasgow coma scale score 13 within 72 hours of a concussive event were recruited by on-site research assistants. Follow-up calls at 30 and 90 days post ED discharge captured extent of PCS using the Rivermead Post-Concussion questionnaire (RPQ), effect on daily living activities measured by the Rivermead Head Injury Questionnaire (RHIQ), and overall health-related quality of life using the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12). Dichotomous and categorical variables were compared using Fishers exact test; continuous variables were compared using t-tests or Mann-Whitney tests, as appropriate. Results: Overall, 130/250 enrolled patients were female. The median age was 35 years; men trended towards being younger (median=32 years; IQR: 23, 45) than women (median=40 years; IQR: 22, 52). Compared to women, more men were single (56% vs 38% (p=0.007) and employed (82% vs 71% (p=0.055). Men and women experienced different injury mechanisms (p=0.007) with more women reporting injury due to a fall (44% vs 26%), while more men were injured at work (16% vs 7%) or due to an assault (11% vs. 3%). Men had a higher return to ED rate (13% vs. 5%; p=0.015). Women had higher RPQ scores at baseline (pConclusion: In a general ED concussion population, demographic differences exist between men and women. Based on self-reported and objective outcomes, womens usual activities may be more affected by concussion and PCS than men. Further analysis of these differences is required in order to identify different treatment options and ensure adequate care and treatment of injury.

Introduction: Emergency Department (ED) Transition Coordinators (TC) have been introduced to many EDs. In Alberta, the EDTC role was designed to evaluate the home needs of senior patients (75 years of age) to enable safe return home after an ED visit, thereby mitigating admissions and return ED visits. The effectiveness of this role at achieving its objectives has received limited evaluation. Methods: TCs assess all ED patients 75 years old, and physicians request TC assessment for patients Results: In April 2017, there were 9849 visits to the ED; of these, TCs assessed 478 patients during 500 visits. The mean age was 82 (SD=11.2) and 41% were male; 22 patients presented twice during April 2017. Patients had a median of 2 (IQR: 1, 5) co-morbidities and 40 (8%) patients reported falls in the past 90 days (median=1; IQR: 1, 2). Overall, 144 (29%) patients lived in a care facility, while 204 (41%) lived at home; residence was unclear or not documented for 152 (30%). Patients reported being independent in a median of 9/14 (IQR: 3, 13) ADLs. An existing homecare connection or receipt of homecare services was documented for 185 patients (37%). Finally, 59 (12%) visits included a new or updated homecare referral, while 200 (33%) ED visits ended in admission. Conclusion: Elderly patients seen in the ED assessed by EDTCs are complex, and despite being well connected, they frequently need hospitalization. In a small proportion of cases, additional or new home care resources are required prior to ED discharge; however, few patients returned to the same ED during the one month study period. Given the high proportion of patients assessed, further evaluation of outcomes is warranted.

Introduction: Qualitative research with emergency department (ED) patients in Alberta has revealed that some patients have limited understanding of the ED care process and that this increases the anxiety, frustration and confusion experienced throughout their visit. The objective of this study was to design, implement, and test the usefulness of a poster explaining the ED care process. Methods: As part of a stepped-wedge ED intervention trial in Alberta, a 4′ x 3′ poster portraying the patient ED care process was developed and posted in 15 study site waiting rooms. Trained research assistants approached patients in 3 urban ED waiting areas and invited them to complete a short paper-based survey on the acceptability and usefulness of the poster. Results are reported as proportions. Results: A total of 316 patients agreed to participate in this study. Approximately half of the participants were male and 60% were between the ages of 17 and 49. The majority of participants identified themselves as white (72%) and nearly half (49%) were accompanied by someone. A third (37%) of patients had read the wall poster prior to being approached to complete the survey. Most patients (62%) who had not read it prior to being approached hadn't noticed the poster or couldn't see it because of its location. Once patients reviewed the poster, the vast majority (92%) reported completely or largely understanding the information and most (84%) found it at least moderately helpful in preparing them for their ED journey. Approximately 45% of respondents agreed that they learned something new about the ED care process by reading the poster and 20% wanted additional information added to the poster; largely, wait time estimates (53% of responses). Conclusion: Placing posters in the ED is one method for equipping patients for their ED care process; however, this study revealed the potential limited utility of this engagement method by the small number of patients who noticed the poster and read the information. Location and content (e.g., time estimates) were identified as key factors for implementation. Condition-specific guides may need to supplement general ED process guides to better prepare patients for their individual ED journey and to actively engage them in their ED care.

Introduction: Variation in image ordering exists across Alberta emergency departments (EDs). Evidence-based, pocket-sized knowledge dissemination tools were developed for two conditions (acute asthma [AA] and benign headache [BHA]) for which imaging (chest x-ray [CXR] and computed tomography [CT], respectively) has limited utility. This study explored tool acceptability among ED patients and emergency physicians (EPs). Methods: Tool feedback was provided by EPs, via online survey, and adult patients with AA and BHA via in-person survey. EPs qualitative interviews further explored communication tools. Preliminary descriptive analyses of survey responses and content analysis of interview data were conducted. Results: Overall, 55 EPs (55/192; 29%) and 38 consecutive patients participated in the AA study; 73 EPs (73/192; 38%) and 160 patients participated in the BHA study. In both studies, approximately 50% of EPs felt comfortable using the tool; however, they suggested including radiation risk details and imaging indications and removing references to imaging variation and health system cost. In the BHA study, EPs opposed the four Choosing Wisely® campaign questions fearing they would increase imaging expectations. In both conditions, most patients ( >90%) understood the content and 68% felt the information applied to them. Less than half (AA:45%; BHA: 38%) agreed that they now knew more about when a patient should have imaging workup done. Following tool review, 71% of AA and 50% of BHA patients stated they would discuss their imaging needs with their ED care provider today or during a future presentation. Both patient groups suggested including: additional imaging details (i.e., indications, risk, clinical utility), removing imaging overuse references, and including instructions that encourage patients to ask their EP questions. EP interviews (n = 12) identified preferences for personalized and interactive tools. Tensions were perceived around ED time pressure as well as remuneration schemes that fail to prioritize patient conversation. Tool centralization, easy access, and connection with outpatient support were also key themes. Conclusion: Both patients and EPs provided valuable information on how to improve ED knowledge dissemination tools, using two chronic conditions to demonstrate how these changes would improve tool utility. Implementing these recommendations, and considering preferences of EPs and patients, may improve future tool uptake and impact.

Introduction: Benign headache (BHA) management varies across emergency departments (EDs). This study documented current BHA management by Alberta emergency physicians (EP) in order to develop a provincial intervention to improve standardized practice. Methods: A convenience sample of Alberta EPs completed an online survey exploring their ED BHA management practices. Results are expressed as proportions. Results: A total of 73 EPs (73/192; 38%) who were mostly male (63%) and practiced emergency medicine for at least 15 years (51%) responded. EPs reported routine ED orders for metoclopramide (97%), ketorolac (90%) and IV fluids (85%) for patients with BHA showing no signs of pathological headache. For moderate-severe BHA's that did not improve with routine treatment, preferences were: IV narcotic (58%), IV dexamethasone (44%), and IV/IM dihydroergotamine (27%). Typically, EPs reported not ordering investigations for moderate-severe BHA presentations (88%); however, for those not improving the most common investigation was computed tomography (CT; 47%). CT ordering was associated with the following clinical scenarios: 1) not responding to traditional therapy and consulted to specialist (64%); 2) not responding to traditional therapy and being admitted (64%); 3) first presentation and afebrile (19%); 4) severe pain (11%); and 5) responding to traditional therapy and febrile (11%). One-quarter of EPs (27%) believed their patients usually or frequently expected a CT. Most EPs (60%) reported being completely or mostly comfortable discussing CT risks. Only 44% reported always or usually discussing risks prior to ordering. EPs reported that they were most frequently prevented from discussing risks because the patient was critically ill (42%) or because they believed explaining risks would not alter patient expectations (21%). These concerns were mirrored in the barriers EPs anticipated to limiting imaging, specifically the fear of missing a severe condition (62%), and patient expectation/request for imaging (48%). Conclusion: Self-reported treatment preferences for uncomplicated BHAs appear to be relatively consistent. Chart reviews could help assessing the reliability of self-reported BHA management practices. Perceived patient expectation appears to be an important influence on EP imaging ordering. Studies examining the communication between EPs and their patients are needed to explore how these expectations and perceived expectations are negotiated in the ED.

BACKGROUND: Although underused, written asthma action plans (AAPs) are associated with reduced numbers of emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations.OBJECTIVE: To describe the frequency of use and contents of any AAPs reported by patients presenting with exacerbations to three urban Canadian EDs.METHODS: Prospective data were collected through ED interview and chart review. Descriptive analyses used proportions and medians with interquartile range; multivariable logistic regression was used for the adjusted analyses.RESULTS: Among 176 enrolled patients, the median age was 27 years (interquartile range 23 to 39 years) and 97 (55%) were female. Few (n=42 [24%]) reported having AAPs at ED presentation and only six were written. Most (n=35 [75%]) patients with any AAP took action before the ED visit; none used a valid anti-inflammatory strategy. The first step of 27 plans was to increase asthma medication; no patients appropriately increased inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). In multivariable analyses, only the use of either ICS or ICS/long-acting β-agonist combination agents (31% had AAPs versus 12% did not have AAPs (adjusted OR 3.0 [95% CI 1.14 to 8.07]) and asthma education (47% had AAPs versus 21% did not have AAPs, adjusted OR 3.2 [95% CI 1.13 to 9.19]) were independently associated with AAP possession.CONCLUSION: Possession of AAPs among patients presenting to the ED with acute asthma was low, and only one in 10 AAPs were written. Patients who reported having any AAP used ineffective strategies to abort or mitigate the severity of an ED visit. Increasing frequency of written AAPs and improving their contents holds immediate promise in improving outcomes related to asthma.

Some low-acuity emergency department (ED) presentations are potentially avoidable with improved primary care access. The majority of ED patients (74.4%) in this study had a family physician, but the frequency of visits varied substantially. The variable frequency of patients' visits to these providers calls into question the validity of linkage assumptions. Several sociodemographic factors were associated with having a family physician, including female sex, being married/common law, race (Caucasian), being employed over the previous 12 months and having received a flu shot in the past year. These factors need to be explored further.

Introduction: Atrial fibrillation and flutter (AF/AFL) are the most common arrhythmias encountered in the emergency department (ED); however, little information exists regarding the preventive management of patients with AF/AFL by emergency physicians (EPs). This study explored whether patients with AF/AFL received the recommended thrombo-embolic (TE) prophylaxis at discharge from the ED; patients’ TE risks, bleeding risks, and TE prophylaxis upon discharge from the ED were examined following assessment for symptomatic acute AF/AFL. Methods: Patients ≥18 years of age identified by the EP as having a diagnosis of acute AF/AFL confirmed by ECG were prospectively enrolled from three urban Canadian EDs. Using standardized patient enrollment forms, trained research assistants collected data on the patient’s demographics, TE risk (using the CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc score), bleeding risk (using the HAS-BLED score), and management both in the ED and at discharge. Treating physicians were surveyed on their use of risk scores when making TE prophylaxis decisions as well as their estimate of the patient’s stroke and bleeding risk. Descriptive analyses were performed. Results: From a total of 196 patients, 62% were male and the mean age was 63 years (standard deviation [SD] ±14). Most patients had previous history of AF/AFL (71%); hypertension was documented in 40% of them and ≤10% had other risk factors (e.g., congestive heart failure, vascular disease, diabetes, previous stroke, transient ischemic attack). Based on the CHADS2 score and previous management, there was opportunity for new or revised antiplatelet/anticoagulant treatment by EPs in 19% of the patients. Consultations were requested in 28% of the patients, and the majority (89%) were discharged with anticoagulant or antiplatelet agents. EPs expressed concerns that an increased risk of falls, lack of access to facilities for INR monitoring, and significant cognitive impairment would affect their willingness to prescribe anticoagulation. Conclusion: Most patients in the ED with acute AF/AFL are receiving the recommended TE prophylaxis; however, given the significant morbidity and mortality associated with AF/AFL, improved short-term prescribing practices for anticoagulants would benefit 1 in 5 ED patients. More research on barriers to EPs prescribing anticoagulants is required to improve clinician comfort in treating this high-risk population.

Introduction: Increase in functional decline of older adults after discharge from the emergency department (ED) has been reported; however, evaluations of interventions to mitigate this problem are infrequent. Data collected in the ED on older adults may document functional status, yet their utility for research is unknown. This study aimed to assess the usability of data collected by ED Transition Coordinators (EDTC) during routine assessments for functional decline research. Methods: EDTCs assess all patients 75 years old presenting to the ED and complete a standardized Transitional Assessment Referral (TAR) form that documents patients independence and daily functioning. To measure the utility of these forms for research purposes, trained research staff evaluated the TARs completed in April 2017 by TCs in the University of Alberta Hospital ED by extracting data from the TARs into a purpose-built REDCap database. Researchers selected and assessed for completeness and clarity the following variables unique to the TARs: facility vs. non-facility living, goals of care and personal directive, fall history, falls in the past 90 days, independence in 14 activities of daily living (ADLs)/instrumental activities of daily living (IADLS), community services in place, and homecare referrals for discharged patients. The proportion of TARs with data for each variable and the proportion of forms with unambiguous responses in each section are reported. Results: Overall, 500 forms were analysed; patients were 41% male with a mean age of 82 (SD=11.2). Homecare referrals, facility vs. non-facility living, and independence with 14 ADLs/IADLs were the most frequently documented variables (81%, 78%, and 79%, respectively); however for ADLs/IADLs, 59% of the 79% had one or more missing components. While fall history was reported in 301 forms (60%), only 107/301 (36%) reported the number of falls in the last 90 days. The referral to homecare variable was complete in 217/268 (81%) forms; however, 99% of files were missing data about goals of care, personal directives, and receipt of community services. Conclusion: Although some information on elderly patients is consistently reported, many of the social service/human factors associated with functional decline are not recorded. While data on the TARs may be useful for studying functional decline in the ED, exploring the barriers to form completion may improve adherence thereby increasing their research utility.

Introduction: Asthma and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations often result in emergency department (ED) visits. This study examined the health-related personnel providing regular care to patients with asthma and/or COPD, as well as, explored the coordination of care between the ED and outpatient settings. Methods: Descriptive cross-sectional examination of patients presenting with asthma and/or COPD exacerbations to two EDs in Edmonton between August and December 2017. Using patient interview methods information on demographics, established health care connections and health system use was collected; information on consultations, disposition and referrals was collected through chart review methods. Results: A total of 50 patients were recruited (14 patients with asthma and 36 patients with COPD). Most of the patients with asthma were female (64%) and their median age was 36 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 29, 46); sex was evenly distributed among the patients with COPD and their median age was 68 years (IQR: 61, 78). The majority reported having a family doctor (86% of the patients with asthma and 94% of the patients with COPD). On the day of admission to the ED, 29% of the patients with asthma visited their family doctor while 42% of the patients with COPD visited their Respirologist; these doctors referred >70% of the patients to the ED. While in the ED, consultations were requested in 21% of the patients with asthma (all to Pulmonary) and in 78% of the patients with COPD (evenly divided between Medicine and Pulmonary). Transition coordinators and social workers were involved in the ED care of Conclusion: While the study patients with asthma and COPD had different health professionals providing regular care to their respiratory conditions, they both sought care before presenting to the ED. More health professionals were involved in the ED care of patients with COPD than of those with asthma. This study provided important information to support further research projects exploring ways to effectively and efficiently improve the delivery, comprehensiveness and utilization of health care services.

Objective ED visits have been rising year on year worldwide. It has been suggested that some of these visits could be avoided if low-acuity patients had better primary care access. This study explored patients' efforts to avoid ED presentation and alternative care sought prior to presentation. Methods Consecutive adult patients presenting to three urban EDs in Edmonton, Canada, completed a questionnaire collecting demographics, actions attempted to avoid presentation and reasons for presentation. Survey data were cross-referenced to a minimal patient dataset containing ED and demographic information. Results A total of 1402 patients (66.5%) completed the survey. Although 89.3% of the patients felt that the ED was their best care option, the majority of patients (60.1%) sought alternative care or advice prior to presentation. Men, individuals who presented with injury only, and individuals with less than a high school education were all less likely to seek alternative care. Alternative care actions included visiting a physician (54.1%) or an alternative healthcare professional (eg, chiropractor, physiotherapist, etc; 21.2%), calling physician offices (47%) or the regional health information line (13%). Of those who called their physicians, the majority received advice to present to the ED (67.5%). Conclusions Most low-acuity patients attempt to avoid ED presentation by seeking alternative care. This analysis identifies groups of individuals in the study region who are less likely to seek alternative care first and may benefit from targeted interventions/education. Other regions may wish to complete a similar profile to determine which patients are less likely to seek alternative care first.

IntroductionNon-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is used to treat severe acute respiratory distress. Prehospital NIPPV has been associated with a reduction in both in-hospital mortality and the need for invasive ventilation.Hypothesis/ProblemThe authors of this study examined factors associated with NIPPV failure and evaluated the impact of NIPPV on scene times in a critical care helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS). Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation failure was defined as the need for airway intervention or alternative means of ventilatory support.MethodsA retrospective chart review of consecutive patients where NIPPV was completed in a critical care HEMS was conducted. Factors associated with NIPPV failure in univariate analyses and from published literature were included in a multivariable, logistic regression model.ResultsFrom a total of 44 patients, NIPPV failed in 14 (32%); a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) P=.003). Mean scene times were significantly longer in patients who failed NIPPV when compared with patients in whom NIPPV was successful (95 minutes vs 51 minutes; 39.4 minutes longer; 95% CI, 16.2-62.5; P=.001).ConclusionPatients with a decreased level of consciousness were more likely to fail NIPPV. Furthermore, patients who failed NIPPV had significantly longer scene times. The benefits of NIPPV should be balanced against risks of long scene times by HEMS providers. Knowing risk factors of NIPPV failure could assist HEMS providers to make the safest decision for patients on whether to initiate NIPPV or proceed directly to endotracheal intubation prior to transport.LeeJS, O’DochartaighD, MacKenzieM, HudsonD, CouperthwaiteS, Villa-RoelC, RoweBH. Factors associated with failure of non-invasive positive pressure ventilation in a critical care helicopter Emergency Medical Service. Prehosp Disaster Med2015; 30(2): 1–5

Introduction: Choosing Wisely Canada® (CWC) launched in April 2012. Since then, the Emergency Medicine (EM) top-10 list of tests, treatments and procedures to avoid has been released and initiatives are on-going. This study explored CWC awareness and support among emergency physicians. Methods: A 60-question online survey was distributed to Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) members with valid e-mails. The survey collected information on demographics, awareness/support for CWC as well as physicians’ perceived barriers and facilitators to implementation. Descriptive statistics were performed in SPSS (Version 24). Results: Overall, 324 surveys were completed (response rate: 18%). Respondents were more often male (64%) and practiced at academic/tertiary care hospitals (56%) with mixed patient populations (74%) with annual ED volumes of >50,000 (70%). Respondents were familiar with campaigns to improve care (90%). Among these respondents, 98% were specifically familiar with CWC and 73% felt these campaigns assisted them in providing high-quality care. Respondents felt that the top-5 EM recommendations were supported by high quality evidence, specifically the first 4 recommendations (>90% each). The most frequently reported barriers to implementation were: patients’ expectations/requests (33%), the possibility of missing severe condition(s) (20%), and requirements of ED consultations (12%). Potential facilitators were identified as: strong evidence-base for recommendations (37%), medico-legal protection for clinicians who adhere to guidelines (13%), and support from institutional leadership (11%). Conclusion: CWC is well-known and supported by emergency physicians. Despite the low response rate, exploring the barriers and facilitators identified here could enhance CWC’s uptake in Canadian emergency departments.

Introduction: Following an emergency department (ED) presentation for acute atrial fibrillation and/or flutter (AF/AFL), patients often experience anxiety, depression and impaired health-related quality of life (QoL). Emergency physicians may prescribe appropriate thrombo-embolic (TE) prophylaxis upon discharge; however, the QoL of these patients is unclear. This study measured the QoL of patients with AF/AFL following discharge to determine the factors associated with QoL. Methods: Patients ≥18 years of age identified by the attending physician as having a diagnosis of acute AF/AFL confirmed by ECG were prospectively enrolled from three Edmonton, AB EDs. Using standardized enrollment forms, trained research assistants collected data on patient demographics factors and management both in the ED and at discharge. Patients’ health-related QoL was assessed up to 20 days after their initial ED visit by a telephone interview based on six domains of the short-form 8 health survey. Results: From a total of 196 enrolled patients, 121 (62%) were male and the mean age was 63 years (standard deviation ±14). Most patients had previous history of AF/AFL (71%), and emergency physicians had the opportunity to treat or revise TE prevention therapy in 19% of the patients. The majority (89%) were discharged with prescriptions for antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents, and 188 (96%) were contacted by telephone at a median of 7 days. Most patients rated their overall health between good and excellent (70%); however, 30% assessed their health as fair or very poor. Many also reported having physical limitations (54%), difficulties completing their daily work (42%), bodily pain (32%) and limitations in social activities (32%). Finally, some patients reported having low energy (25%). At follow up, patients receiving adequate TE prevention rated their health to be similar to those without adequate TE prevention (30% vs 23%; p=0.534). Conclusion: Overall, patients with acute, symptomatic AF/AFL seen in the ED have impairments in health-related QoL following discharge from the ED. Many factors contribute to this impairment; however, providing patients with appropriate TE prophylaxis at discharge did not explain these findings. Further research is required to explore the impact of AF/AFL on patient’s health-related QoL after discharge from the ED.

Introduction: Educational interventions driven by the needs of users can help move evidence into practice. This study considered the perceptions of patients and knowledge users in the design of an educational intervention in acute asthma directed from Emergency Departments (EDs). Methods: A mixed methods design with two phases was used. In phase I, convenience samples of asthmatics presenting to the University of Alberta Hospital ED and primary care providers (PCPs) from Edmonton were invited to participate in a survey. Perceptions with respect to: a) an ideal local opinion leader (OL) in ambulatory asthma care; and b) content, style and delivery methods of OL educational interventions in acute asthma were collected. In phase II, focus-group discussions were conducted to further explore preferences and expectations for such interventions; self-perceived barriers and facilitators for implementation were assessed. Results: Overall, 54 patients completed the survey; 39% preferred receiving guidance from a Respirologist, 44% during their ED visit and 56% through individual discussions. In addition, 55% expressed interest in having PCP follow-up within a week of discharge. A Respirologist was identified as an OL in ambulatory asthma by 59% of the 39 responding PCPs. All expressed interest in receiving notification of their patients’ ED presentation, most within a week and including diagnosis and ED/post ED-treatment. Personalized and guideline-based recommendations were considered to be the ideal content by the majority; 39% requested this guidance through an educational pamphlet faxed to their offices. In the focus groups, patients and PCPs recognized the importance of health professional liaisons in the ED to PCP transition of care; patient anxiety and time constraints were identified as potential barriers for ED-educational information uptake and proper post-ED follow-up, respectively. Conclusion: Messages arising from patients and PCPs help tailoring study interventions to meet local needs and expectations. Overall, patients and physicians are seeking ways to mitigate problems with transitions in care. This contact with the practice environment also facilitates the identification of potential determinants to implementation and knowledge uptake.

Introduction: Patients with renal colic present frequently to the emergency department (ED). Existing literature suggests management with medical expulsion therapy (MET) may improve outcomes, especially for those with stones > 5 mm in size. This study evaluates the use of MET in the management of adult patients seen in regional EDs with a diagnosis of renal colic. Methods: A multi-centered medical chart review study was conducted in seven Edmonton-Zone EDs. Approximately 100 cases from each site were randomly selected from administrative data from the 2014 calendar year, no repeat cases were permitted. Using a standardized data collection process and trained research assistance, data were abstracted from medical charts. Medians and inter-quartile ranges (IQR), proportions, and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. Results: Overall, 656 patient charts were included in the review; median age was 46 years (IQR: 35, 46) and 249 (38%) were female. Few (10%) arrived by ambulance or were on MET therapy at presentation; however, many (51%) reported a previous episode of renal colic. Many (191 {29%}) received no initial ED imaging; CT (236 {36%}) was favoured over ultrasound (39 {6%}) for initial imaging, either alone or with plain radiographs (8%). Plain radiographs were frequently ordered (204 {31%}). Only 198 (31%) of charts contained documentation of the use of MET at discharge and the median duration of therapy was 10 days (IQR: 7, 14). Initiation of MET therapy did not vary based on older age (OR = 0.8; 95% CI: 0.57, 1.14); sex (OR = 0.9; 95% CI: 0.67, 1.33); resident involvement (OR = 1.1; 95% CI: 0.63, 2.0); presentation to an academic centre (OR = 1.4; 95% CI: 0.96, 1.95) or stone size (OR = 1.3; 95% CI: 0.76, 2.06). Conclusion: Management of renal colic with MET is uncommon in this region and practice variation appears driven by physician preference rather than evidence. Practice guidelines with standardized order sets are urgently needed to improve care.

Introduction: Some non-urgent/low-acuity Emergency Department (ED) presentations are considered convenience visits and potentially avoidable with improved access to primary care services. This study surveyed patients who presented to the ED and explored their self-reported reasons and barriers for not being connected to a primary care provider (PCP). Methods: Patients aged 17 years and older were randomly selected from electronic registration records at three urban EDs in Edmonton, Alberta (AB), Canada. Following initial triage, stabilization, and verbal informed consent, patients completed a 47-item questionnaire. Data from the survey were cross-referenced to a minimal patient dataset consisting of ED and demographic information. The questionnaire collected information on patient characteristics, their connection to a PCP, and patients' reasons for not having a PCP. Results: Of the 2144 eligible patients, 1408 (65.7%) surveys were returned and 1402 (65.4%) were completed. The majority of patients (74.4%) presenting to the ED reported having a family physician; however, the ‘closeness’ of the connection to their family physician varied greatly among ED patients with the most recent family physician visit ranging from 1 hour before ED presentation to 45 years prior. Approximately 25% of low acuity ED patients reported no connection with a family physician. Reasons for a lack of PCP connection included: prior physician retired, left, or died (19.8%), they had never tried to find one (19.2%), they had recently moved to Alberta (18.0%), and they were unable to find one (16.5%). Conclusion: A surprisingly high proportion of ED patients (25.6%) have no identified PCP. Patients had a variety of reasons for not having a family physician. These need to be understood and addressed in order for primary care access to successfully contribute to diverting non-urgent, low acuity presentations from the ED.