Cessation of Smoking Trial in the Emergency Department (COSTED): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Supporting people to quit smoking is one of the most powerful interventions to improve health. The Emergency Department (ED) represents a potentially valuable opportunity to deliver a smoking cessation intervention if it is sufficiently resourced. The objective of this trial was to determine whether an opportunistic ED-based smoking cessation intervention can help people to quit smoking. METHODS: In this multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled superiority trial conducted between January and August 2022, adults who smoked daily and attended one of six UK EDs were randomised to intervention (brief advice, e-cigarette starter kit and referral to stop smoking services) or control (written information on stop smoking services). The primary outcome was biochemically validated abstinence at 6 months. RESULTS: An intention-to-treat analysis included 972 of 1443 people screened for inclusion (484 in the intervention group, 488 in the control group). Of 975 participants randomised, 3 were subsequently excluded, 17 withdrew and 287 were lost to follow-up. The 6-month biochemically-verified abstinence rate was 7.2% in the intervention group and 4.1% in the control group (relative risk 1.76; 95% CI 1.03 to 3.01; p=0.038). Self-reported 7-day abstinence at 6 months was 23.3% in the intervention group and 12.9% in the control group (relative risk 1.80; 95% CI 1.36 to 2.38; p<0.001). No serious adverse events related to taking part in the trial were reported. CONCLUSIONS: An opportunistic smoking cessation intervention comprising brief advice, an e-cigarette starter kit and referral to stop smoking services is effective for sustained smoking abstinence with few reported adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04854616.

Fluid biomarkers and neuroimaging in mild traumatic brain injury: current uses and potential future directions for clinical use in emergency medicine.

Mild traumatic brain injury is a common presentation to the emergency department, with current management often focusing on determining whether a patient requires a CT head scan and/or neurosurgical intervention. There is a growing appreciation that approximately 20%-40% of patients, including those with a negative (normal) CT, will develop ongoing symptoms for months to years, often termed post-concussion syndrome. Owing to the requirement for improved diagnostic and prognostic mechanisms, there has been increasing evidence concerning the utility of both imaging and blood biomarkers.Blood biomarkers offer the potential to better risk stratify patients for requirement of neuroimaging than current clinical decisions rules. However, improved assessment of the clinical utility is required prior to wide adoption. MRI, using clinical sequences and advanced quantitative methods, can detect lesions not visible on CT in up to 30% of patients that may explain, at least in part, some of the ongoing problems. The ability of an acute biomarker (be it imaging, blood or other) to highlight those patients at greater risk of ongoing deficits would allow for greater personalisation of follow-up care and resource allocation.We discuss here both the current evidence and the future potential clinical usage of blood biomarkers and advanced MRI to improve diagnostic pathways and outcome prediction following mild traumatic brain injury.

Usability of electronic health record systems in UK EDs.

BACKGROUND: The large volume of patients, rapid staff turnover and high work pressure mean that the usability of all systems within the ED is important. The transition to electronic health records (EHRs) has brought many benefits to emergency care but imposes a significant burden on staff to enter data. Poor usability has a direct consequence and opportunity cost in staff time and resources that could otherwise be employed in patient care. This research measures the usability of EHR systems in UK EDs using a validated assessment tool. METHODS: This was a survey completed by members and fellows of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine conducted during summer 2019. The primary outcome was the System Usability Scale Score, which ranges from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). Scores were compared with an internationally recognised measure of acceptable usability of 68. Results were analysed by EHR system, country, healthcare organisation and physician grade. Only EHR systems with at least 20 responses were analysed. RESULTS: There were 1663 responses from a total population of 8794 (19%) representing 192 healthcare organisations (mainly UK NHS), and 25 EHR systems. Fifteen EHR systems had at least 20 responses and were included in the analysis. No EHR system achieved a median usability score that met the industry standard of acceptable usability.The median usability score was 53 (IQR 35-68). Individual EHR systems' scores ranged from 35 (IQR 26-53) to 65 (IQR 44-80). CONCLUSION: In this survey, no UK ED EHR system met the internationally validated standard of acceptable usability for information technology.