Effects of the delivery of physiotherapy on the treatment course of elderly fallers presenting to the emergency department: Protocol for a randomized clinical trial.

The use of physiotherapy (PT) in the hospital emergency department (ED) has shown positive results including improvements in patient waiting time, treatment initiation, discharge type, patient outcomes, safety and acceptability of the intervention by medical staffs. These findings originate from studies that primarily focus on musculoskeletal and orthopaedic conditions. Despite a significant number of people visiting the ED, there is a shortage of literature evaluating PT in the ED for elderly populations. The objective of this study is the evaluate the effect of delivering PT in the ED (versus no delivery) in patients aged 75 and over with 'falls' complaints. The main objective is the evaluate the effect on the discharge disposition (discharge home, hospitalization). Secondarily, we will evaluate the effect delivering PT on patient-length of stay, the number of falls at 7 days after admission to the ED, changes between the initial and final medical decision regarding patient orientation, and medical staff satisfaction. This study will follow a prospective longitudinal design involving participants aged 75 years and over. We plan to recruit a total n = 336 patients admitted to the ED with a 'fall' chief complaint. After consent, participants will be randomized into either the 'PT-group' (receiving a prescription and execution of PT within the ED), or to the 'no-PT group' (no delivery of PT within the ED). The PT intervention will involve a standardized assessment of motor capacities using validated clinical examinations, and the delivery of rehabilitative exercises based on individual needs. Outcomes will be recorded from the patient's medical record, and a phone call at 7 days. A questionnaire will be sent to medical staff. The results of this study will help to determine whether PT might be beneficial for the management of this increasing proportion of individuals who come to the ED. Trial registration: (Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05753319). https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05753319.

Impact of emergency physician performed ultrasound in the evaluation of adult patients with acute abdominal pain: a prospective randomized bicentric trial.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal pain is common in patients visiting the emergency department (ED). The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic contribution of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in patients presenting to the ED with acute abdominal pain. METHODS: We designed an interventional randomized, controlled, open label, parallel-group, trial in two French EDs. We included adult patients presenting to the ED with acute abdominal pain. Exclusion criteria were a documented end-of-life, an immediate need of life-support therapy and pregnant or breast-feeding women. Patients were randomized in the experimental group (i.e., workup including POCUS) or control group (usual care). The primary objective of the study was to assess the added value of POCUS on diagnostic pathway in the ED, according to the diagnostic established a posteriori by an adjudication committee. The primary endpoint was the proportion of exact preliminary diagnosis between the 2 groups. The preliminary diagnosis made after clinical examination and biological results with POCUS (intervention arm) or without POCUS (usual care) was considered exact if it was similar to the adjudication committee diagnosis. RESULTS: Between June 2021 11th and June 2022 23th, 256 patients were randomized, but five were not included in the primary analysis, leaving 125 patients in the POCUS group and 126 patients in the usual care group (130 women and 121 men, median [Q1-Q3] age: 42 [30;57]). There was no difference for exact diagnosis between the two groups (POCUS 70/125, 56% versus control 78/126 (62%), RD 1.23 [95% CI 0.74-2.04]). There was no difference in the accuracy for the diagnosis of non-specific abdominal pain nor number of biological or radiological exams. Diagnostic delays and length of stay in the ED were also similar. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, systematic POCUS did not improve the rate of diagnostic accuracy in unselected patients presenting to the ED with acute abdominal pain. However, as it was a safe procedure, further research should focus on patients with suspected etiologies where POCUS is particularly useful. TRIAL REGISTRATION:  This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on 2022/07/20 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04912206?id=NCT04912206&rank=1 ) (NCT04912206).

Impact of an enhanced focused cardiac ultrasound on treatment changes in a population of internal medicine patients.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients with acute shortness of breath (SOB) could benefit from an enhanced focused cardiac ultrasound (eFoCUS) with Doppler measurements to reassess treatment and diagnosis. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study performed in a medical ward. Included patients were those hospitalized for acute SOB. The objectives were to assess therapeutic and diagnosis changes associated with eFoCUS. The primary endpoint of the analysis was a composite of introduction or discontinuation of diuretics, antibiotics or anticoagulation following eFoCUS. RESULTS: Between January 2018 and July 2021, 119 patients were included, 67 women and 52 men, mean age 84 ± 11 years old. The eFoCUS was performed within a median time of 55 h (1st-3rd IQ: 21-107) following hospital admission. Overall, eFoCUS was associated with a change in diagnostic in 40 patients (34% [CI 95%: 25%-43%], p < 10-4 ) and a change in treatment in 53 patients (45% [CI 95%: 35%-54%], p < 10-4 ). Diuretics were prescribed in 94 patients before eFoCUS and in 56 after (p = 10-4 ), antibiotics in 34 before and 27 after and anticoagulation in 30 before and 40 after. CONCLUSION: eFoCUS was associated with both therapeutic and diagnostic changes in patients with SOB. Such results should be confirmed in multicentric prospective studies.

Impact of Different Training Methods on Daily Use of Point-of-Care Ultrasound: Survey on 515 Physicians.

ABSTRACT: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) curriculum varies among countries. However, the length of training required for physicians is still under debate. We investigated the impact of different training methods: short hands-on courses (STS), long academic training sessions (LTS), or both (mixed training [MTS]), for POCUS daily use and self-reported confidence overall and specific to specific clinical situations. This was a descriptive study conducted over a 3-month period through a Web-based survey designed to assess the influence of different methods of POCUS training among physicians and residents on their daily practice. The survey was sent to 1212 emergency physicians with prior POCUS training; 515 answers (42%) could be analyzed. Participants in the STS group performed POCUS less frequently than physicians in the LTS or MTS group. Daily use in the STS group was 51% versus 82% in the LTS group and 83% in the MTS group ( P < 0.01). The overall self-reported confidence in POCUS was lower in the STS group ( P < 0.01) in all studied clinical situations. There was no significant difference between LTS and MTS groups ( P > 0.05). Method of POCUS training significantly influenced POCUS daily use. Physicians who underwent long training sessions used POCUS more frequently in their routine practice and were significantly more confident in their ability to perform and interpret a POCUS examination.

Is a Positive Prehospital FAST Associated with Severe Bleeding? A Multicenter Retrospective Study.

INTRODUCTION: Severe hemorrhage is the leading cause of early preventable death in severe trauma patients. Delayed diagnosis is a poor prognostic factor, and severe hemorrhage prediction is essential. The aim of our study was to investigate if there was an association between the detection of peritoneal or pleural fluid on prehospital sonography for trauma and posttraumatic severe hemorrhage. METHODS: We retrospectively studied data from records of thoracic or abdominal trauma patients managed in mobile intensive care units from January 2017 to December 2021 in four centers in France. Severe hemorrhage was defined as a condition necessitating transfusion of at least four packed red blood cells or surgical intervention/radioembolization for hemostasis within the first 24 h. Using a multivariate analysis, we investigated the predictive performance of focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) alone or in combination with the five Red Flags criteria validated by Hamada et al. RESULTS: Among the 527 patients analyzed, 371 (71%) were men, the mean age was 41 ± 19 years, and the Injury Severity Score was 11 (Interquartile range = [5; 22]). Seventy-three (14%) patients had severe hemorrhage - of whom 28 (38%) had a positive FAST, compared to 61 (13%) without severe hemorrhage (p < 0.01). For severe hemorrhage prediction, FAST had a sensitivity of 38% (95%CI = [27%; 50%]) and a specificity of 87% (95%CI = [83%; 90%]) (AUC = 0.62, 95%CI = [0.57; 0.68]). The comparison of the other outcomes between positive and negative FAST was: hemostatic procedure, 22 (25%) vs 28 (6%), p < 0.01; intensive care unit admission 71 (80%) vs 190 (43%), p < 0.01; mean length of hospital stay 11 [4; 27] vs 4 [0; 14] days, p = 0.02; 30-day mortality 13 (15%) vs 22 (5%), p < 0.01. CONCLUSION: A positive FAST performed in the prehospital setting is associated with severe hemorrhage and all prognostic criteria we studied.

Impact of emergency physician-performed ultrasound for the evaluation of patients with acute abdominal pain, prospective randomized dual Centre study: study protocol for a diagnostic trial.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal pain is frequent in patients consulting in emergency departments. The aim of this study is to determine the diagnosis efficacy of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in patients consulting in the ED for acute abdominal pain by comparing the rate of exact diagnostic between the two arms (with or without POCUS), according to the index diagnostic established by an adjudication committee. METHODS: It is a randomized, controlled, open and interventional study in two emergency departments. The included patients will be adults admitted for acute abdominal pain. Exclusion criteria will be a documented end-of-life, an immediate need of life-support therapy and pregnant or breast-feeding women. Patients will be randomized in intervention (POCUS) or control groups. POCUS will only be performed by trained physicians and will be added to the diagnosis procedure in the intervention group. In the control group, the diagnosis will be established after clinical examination and reception of biological analysis results. In the interventional group, the diagnosis will be established after a clinical exam, biological analysis reception and POCUS. An adjudication committee will review all data from case report forms and will determine the index diagnosis which will be used for the analysis. The primary endpoint will be the comparison of the rate of exact diagnostic between the two arms according to the adjudication committee diagnostic. Secondary endpoints will be the comparison between the two groups for diagnostic delay, duration of ED stay, diagnostic performances for non-specific abdominal pain and hospitalization rate. The primary endpoint will be compared between the two groups using a mixed model taking into account the recruiting centre. Delays will be compared by a mixed linear generalized model. Diagnostic performances will be estimated with their 95% confidence intervals. For a correct diagnostic rate of 57% in the control group and 74% in the intervention group with a 0.05 alpha risk and a 80% power, 244 patients will be required. DISCUSSION: POCUS diagnostic abilities have been mainly demonstrated in monocentric studies but the level of evidence of its diagnostic efficacy remains controversial in particular in Europe. The aim of this study is to address this question with a rigorous methodology. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04912206. Registered on June 3, 2021.

Guidelines for the management of urgent obstetric situations in emergency medicine, 2022.

OBJECTIVE: To provide recommendations on the management of urgent obstetrical emergencies outside the maternity ward. DESIGN: A group of 24 experts from the French Society of Emergency Medicine (SFMU), the French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine (SFAR) and the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF) was convened. Potential conflicts of interest were formally declared at the outset of the guideline development process, which was conducted independently of industry funding. The authors followed the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method to assess the level of evidence in the literature. The potential drawbacks of strong recommendations in the presence of low-level evidence were highlighted. Some recommendations with an insufficient level of evidence were not graded. METHODS: Eight areas were defined: imminent delivery, postpartum haemorrhage (prevention and management), threat of premature delivery, hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, trauma, imaging, cardiopulmonary arrest, and emergency obstetric training. For each field, the expert panel formulated questions according to the PICO model (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes) and an extensive literature search was conducted. Analysis of the literature and formulation of recommendations were conducted according to the GRADE method. RESULTS: Fifteen recommendations on the management of obstetrical emergencies were issued by the SFMU/SFAR/CNGOF panel of experts, and 4 recommendations from formalised expert recommendations (RFE) established by the same societies were taken up to answer 4 PICO questions dealing with the pre-hospital context. After two rounds of voting and several amendments, strong agreement was reached for all the recommendations. For two questions (cardiopulmonary arrest and inter-hospital transfer), no recommendation could be made. CONCLUSIONS: There was significant agreement among the experts on strong recommendations to improve practice in the management of urgent obstetric complications in emergency medicine.

Guidelines for the choice of intravenous fluids for vascular filling in critically ill patients, 2021.

PURPOSE: To provide recommendations for the appropriate choice of fluid therapy for resuscitation of critically ill patients. DESIGN: A consensus committee of 24 experts from the French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine (Société française d'anesthésie et de réanimation, SFAR) and the French Society of Emergency Medicine (Société française de médecine d'urgence, SFMU) was convened. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guideline elaboration process was conducted independently of any industry funding. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide their assessment of quality of evidence. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasised. Some recommendations were left ungraded. METHODS: Four fields were defined: patients with sepsis or septic shock, patients with haemorrhagic shock, patients with acute brain failure, and patients during the peripartum period. For each field, the panel focused on two questions: (1) Does the use of colloids, as compared to crystalloids, reduce morbidity and mortality, and (2) Does the use of some specific crystalloids effectively reduce morbidity and mortality. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. The analysis of the literature and the recommendations were then conducted according to the GRADE methodology. RESULTS: The SFAR/SFMU guideline panel provided nine statements on the appropriate choice of fluid therapy for resuscitation of critically ill patients. After two rounds of rating and various amendments, strong agreement was reached for 100% of the recommendations. Out of these recommendations, two have a high level of evidence (Grade 1 +/-), six have a moderate level of evidence (Grade 2 +/-), and one is based on expert opinion. Finally, no recommendation was formulated for two questions. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial agreement among experts has been obtained to provide a sizable number of recommendations aimed at optimising the choice of fluid therapy for resuscitation of critically ill patients.

[Reception of a patient suspected of having a psychiatric condition in an emergency department]. / Accueil d'un patient suspect d'une pathologie psychiatrique en structure des urgences.

Many emergency patients have pre-existing psychiatric conditions. They may also present a symptomatology likely to evoke this type of psychiatric pathology. The way in which these patients are received and managed is of prime importance, as it determines the subsequent treatment. It is therefore essential that the emergency services organise a specific pathway for these patients.

[The elderly with a psychiatric prognosis in the emergency room]. / Le sujet âgé à présentation psychiatrique aux urgences.

In the emergency department, the diagnosis of an acute psychiatric condition in an elderly patient should only be made after rigorous clinical and paraclinical examinations to rule out any somatic pathology. In addition, the management and treatment of acute agitation must be adapted.

Contribution of lung ultrasound in diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia in the emergency department: a prospective multicentre study.

Lung ultrasound (LUS) can help clinicians make a timely diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). OBJECTIVES: To assess if LUS can improve diagnosis and antibiotic initiation in emergency department (ED) patients with suspected CAP. DESIGN: A prospective observational study. SETTINGS: Four EDs. PARTICIPANTS: The study included 150 patients older than 18 years with a clinical suspicion of CAP, of which 2 were subsequently excluded (incorrect identification), leaving 148 patients (70 women and 78 men, average age 72±18 years). Exclusion criteria included a life-threatening condition with do-not-resuscitate-order or patient requiring immediate intensive care. INTERVENTIONS: After routine diagnostic procedure (clinical, radiological and laboratory tests), the attending emergency physician established a clinical CAP probability according to a four-level Likert scale (definite, probable, possible and excluded). An LUS was then performed, and another CAP probability was established based on the ultrasound result. An adjudication committee composed of three independent experts established the final CAP probability at hospital discharge. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary objective was to assess concordance rate of CAP diagnostic probabilities between routine diagnosis procedure or LUS and the final probability of the adjudication committee. Secondary objectives were to assess changes in CAP probability induced by LUS, and changes in antibiotic treatment initiation. RESULTS: Overall, 27% (95% CI 20 to 35) of the routine procedure CAP classifications and 77% (95% CI 71 to 84) of the LUS CAP classifications were concordant with the adjudication committee classifications. Cohen's kappa coefficients between routine diagnosis procedure and LUS, according to adjudication committee, were 0.07 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.11) and 0.61 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.66), respectively. The modified probabilities for the diagnosis of CAP after LUS resulted in changes in antibiotic prescriptions in 32% (95% CI 25 to 40) of the cases. CONCLUSION: In our study, LUS was a powerful tool to improve CAP diagnosis in the ED, reducing diagnostic uncertainty from 73% to 14%. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03411824.

Goal-directed ultrasound protocol in patients with nontraumatic undifferentiated shock in the emergency department: prospective dual centre study.

BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE: Early identification of the cause of shock is associated with better prognosis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the performances of an ultrasound protocol (echoSHOCK) to diagnose the cause of shock in the emergency department (ED). DESIGN, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a prospective study performed in two EDs. Included patients were older than 18 years admitted with shock. After routine workup strategy, the suspected cause of shock and the planned treatment were reported. The echoSHOCK protocol, using only B mode, was then performed. After performing echoSHOCK, the investigator reported the same two items. INTERVENTION: echoSHOCK protocol that assessed: compressive pericardial effusion (tamponade), right ventricle dilatation and flattening of the septum, left ventricle dimension and systolic function, indices of hypovolemia. OUTCOMES MEASURE AND ANALYSIS: We defined four different causes for shock (tamponade, acute cor pulmonale, cardiogenic and hypovolemia). The primary endpoint was the degree of agreement of the routine workup and echoSHOCK with an expert panel. MAIN RESULTS: 85 patients [mean age of 73 (14) years] were included. Kappa coefficients between routine strategy and echoSHOCK for the cause of shock, with the expert panel were 0.33 (95% CI, 0.26-0.4) and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.83-0.93), respectively. Likewise, for the planned treatment, kappa were 0.21 (95% CI, 0.14-0.28) and 0.9 (95% CI, 0.85-0.94), respectively. The physician's confidence increased from 3.9 (2.1) before echoSHOCK to 9.3 (1.1) after, (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study suggested that echoSHOCK significantly increased the ability to determine the cause of undifferentiated shock in the ED.

Effect of chest ultrasound on diagnostic workup in elderly patients with acute respiratory failure in the emergency department: a prospective study.

METHODS: We carried out a prospective study performed in our ED, included patients older than 75 years presenting with acute respiratory failure. Noninclusion criteria were documented palliative care or the need for immediate intensive care. After informed consent approval and routine diagnostic procedure (clinical, radiological and laboratory tests), the ED physician established the first diagnosis. Chest ultrasound was then performed, and a second diagnosis was established. An adjudication committee also established a diagnosis. The unweighted Cohen's kappa (κ) coefficient was used to measure the strength of agreement between routine diagnostic approach, chest ultrasound and adjudication committee diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 89 patients were included, mean age 86 ± 5 years old. Concordance was very good (κ = 0.82) between chest ultrasound and adjudication committee diagnostic and moderate (κ = 0.52) between routine diagnostic approach and adjudication committee diagnostic. Cardiogenic pulmonary edema and community-acquired pneumonia were the most frequent diagnoses (48.5 and 27%, respectively). Chest ultrasound had higher sensitivity and specificity for both diagnoses. CONCLUSION: In our study, chest ultrasound add-on investigation to standard approach improved diagnosis performance in elderly patients presenting to the ED with acute respiratory failure. Further multicenter randomized trials are warranted to confirm this finding.