Ten (+1) lessons from conducting a mass casualty in situ simulation exercise in a Canadian academic hospital setting.

Providing care in a twenty-first century urban emergency department (ED) and trauma center is a complex high-pressure practice environment. The pressure is intensified during patient surge scenarios commonly seen during mass casualty incidents, such that response must be practiced regularly. Beyond clinical mastery of individual patient trauma care, a coordinated system-level response is essential to optimize patient care during these relatively infrequent events. This paper highlights the need to perform exercises in hospitals while providing practical advice on how to utilize in situ simulation for mass casualty testing. Eleven lessons are presented to assist other emergency management professionals, hospital administrators, or clinical staff to achieve success with in situ simulation. Based upon our experience designing and executing an in situ mass casualty simulation within an ED, we offer lessons applicable to any type of disaster exercise. Simulation offers a powerful tool for the conduct of disaster preparedness exercises for staff across multiple hospital departments and professions.

Integration of In Situ Simulation Into an Emergency Department Code Orange Exercise in a Tertiary Care Trauma Referral Center.

OBJECTIVES: Disaster-preparedness and response are a commonly overlooked aspect of hospital policy and can frequently be outdated and undertested. Simulation-based education has become a core education modality within Canadian medical training programs. We hypothesized that integrating in situ simulation (ISS) into a hospital-wide, mass-casualty response exercise would enhance realism and our ability to identify latent safety threats (LSTs). METHODS: Using ISS we created a simulated mass shooting scenario with 20 patients, played by actors in full moulage, presenting to a large tertiary care hospital over a 50-minute period. RESULTS: Integrating ISS into our exercise created a realistic experience for the participants involved and improved participant education, while imparting enough systemic stress to expose LSTs associated within patient care and hospital policy. CONCLUSION: Overall, ISS was successfully used and enhanced a large-scale test of our hospital's mass-casualty response plan.

Evaluating the paramedic application of the prehospital Canadian C-Spine Rule in sport-related injuries.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare the ability of the prehospital Canadian C-Spine Rule to selectively recommend immobilization in sport-related versus non-sport-related injuries and describe sport-related mechanisms of injury. METHODS: We reviewed data from the prospective paramedic Canadian C-Spine Rule validation and implementation studies in 7 Canadian cities. A trained reviewer further categorized sport-related mechanisms of injury collaboratively with a sport medicine physician using a pilot-tested standardized form. We compared the Canadian C-Spine Rule's recommendation to immobilize sport-related versus non-sport-related patients using Chi-square and relative risk statistics with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: There were 201 sport-related patients among the 5,978 included. Sport-related injured patients were younger (mean age 36.2 vs. 42.4) and more predominantly male (60.5% vs. 46.8%) than non-sport-related patients. Paramedics did not miss any C-Spine injury when using the Canadian C-Spine Rule. C-Spine injury rates were similar between sport (2/201; 1.0%) and non-sport-injured patients (47/5,777; 0.8%). The Canadian C-Spine Rule recommended immobilization equally between groups (46.4% vs. 42.5%; RR 1.09 95%CI 0.93-1.28), most commonly resulting from a dangerous mechanism among sport-injured (68.7% vs. 54.5%; RR 1.26 95%CI 1.08-1.47). The most common dangerous mechanism responsible for immobilization in sport was axial load. CONCLUSION: Although equal proportions of sport and non-sport-related injuries were immobilized, a dangerous mechanism was most often responsible for immobilization in sport-related cases. These findings do not address the potential impact of using the Canadian C-Spine Rule to evaluate collegiate or pro athletes assessed by sport medicine physicians. It does support using the Canadian C-Spine Rule as a tool in sport-injured patients assessed by paramedics.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: Nous avons cherché à comparer la capacité préhospitalière de la Canadian C-spine Rule à recommander de façon sélective l'immobilisation dans les blessures liées au sport par rapport aux blessures non liées au sport et à décrire les mécanismes des blessures liés au sport. LES MéTHODES: Nous avons examiné les données des études prospectives de validation et de mise en œuvre de la règle canadienne de la colonne vertébrale dans sept villes canadiennes. Un examinateur qualifié a ensuite classé les mécanismes de blessure liés au sport, en collaboration avec un médecin du sport, à l'aide d'un formulaire standardisé testé dans le cadre d'un projet pilote. Nous avons comparé la recommandation de la Canadian C-Spine Rule d'immobiliser les patients liés au sport par rapport aux patients non liés au sport en utilisant les statistiques du chi carré et du risque relatif avec un intervalle de confiance de 95 %. RéSULTATS: Parmi les 5 978 patients inclus il y avait 201 patients liés au sport. Les patients blessés liés au sport étaient plus jeunes (âge moyen 36,2 ans contre 42,4 ans) et plus majoritairement de sexe masculin (60,5 % contre 46,8 %) que les patients non liés au sport. Les ambulanciers paramédicaux n'ont manqué aucune blessure au rachis cervical lorsqu'ils ont utilisé la Canadian C-spine Rule. Les taux de blessures au rachis cervical étaient semblables chez les patients sportifs (2/201 ; 1,0 %) et non sportifs (47/5 777 ; 0,8 %). La Canadian C-spine Rule recommande l'immobilisation de manière égale entre les groupes (46,4 % contre 42,5 % ; RR 1,09 95 % IC 0,93-1,28), le plus souvent en raison d'un mécanisme dangereux chez les sportifs blessés (68,7 % contre 54,5 % ; RR 1,26 95 % IC 1,08-1,47). Le mécanisme dangereux le plus souvent responsable de l'immobilisation dans le sport était la charge axiale. CONCLUSION: Bien que des proportions égales de blessures sportives et non sportives aient été immobilisées, un mécanisme dangereux était le plus souvent responsable de l'immobilisation dans les cas liés au sport. Ces conclusions n'abordent pas l'impact potentiel de l'utilisation de la Canadian C-spine Rule pour évaluer les athlètes collégiaux ou professionnels évalués par les médecins du sport. Elle est favorable à l'utilisation de la Canadian C-spine Rule comme outil pour les patients blessés par le sport et évalués par les ambulanciers.

Adjuvant Therapy Failure Patterns in the Modern Era of Melanoma Management.

BACKGROUND: The management of patients with resected stage 3 melanoma has changed significantly due to adoption of the Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial (MSLT)-2 guidelines and to the survival benefit of adjuvant anti-PD-1 immunotherapy and BRAF/MEK-inhibitor (BRAF/MEKi) therapy. Data are scarce regarding recurrence patterns, adjuvant therapy responses, and therapy-associated adverse events (AEs) in the modern era. METHODS: This single-institution, retrospective study analyzed surgically resected stage 3 and oligometastatic stage 4 patients who received anti-PD-1, BRAF/MEKi, or surgery with active surveillance only. The primary end point of the study was recurrence-free survival (RFS). The secondary end points were the location and clinical characteristics of recurrence and therapy-associated AEs. RESULTS: From a cohort of 137 patients, the study enrolled 102 patients treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 (n = 46), adjuvant BRAF/MEKi (n = 3), or surgery alone (n = 26). During a mean follow-up period of 17 months, 20% of the ani-PD-1 patients, 13% of the BRAF/MEKi patients, and 42% of the surgery-only patients experienced recurrence. Log-rank testing showed a significantly longer RFS for the patients treated with anti-PD-1 [15.3 months; interquartile range (IQR), 8.2-23.2 months; p = 0.04] or BRAF/MEKi (17.9 months; IQR, 12.5-23 months; p = 0.01) than for those treated with surgery alone (11.9 months; IQR, 7.0-17.6 months). In the anti-PD-1 group, AEs occurred less frequently than in the BRAF/MEKi group (54% vs 80%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant anti-PD-1 and BRAF/MEKi were associated with significantly improved RFS for the patients with resected stage 3 or 4 melanoma. The BRAF/MEKi group had significantly more AEs than the anti-PD-1 group. This is the first study to characterize real-world recurrence in the modern era of adjuvant therapy for melanoma.