Implementation of a COVID-19 cohort area resulted in no surface or air contamination in surrounding areas in one academic emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and highly contagious nature of SARS-CoV-2, emergency departments (EDs) have been forced to implement new measures and protocols to minimize the spread of the disease within their departments. The primary objective of this study was to determine if the implementation of a designated COVID-19 cohort area (hot zone) within a busy ED mitigated the dissemination of SARS-CoV-2 throughout the rest of the department. METHODS: In an ED of a tertiary academic medical center, with 64,000 annual visits, an eight room pod was designated for known COVID-19 or individuals with high suspicion for infection. There was a single entry and exit for donning and doffing personal protective equipment (PPE). Health care workers (HCW) changed gowns and gloves between patients, but maintained their N-95 mask and face shield, cleaning the shield with a germicidal wipe between patients. Staffing assignments designated nurses and technicians to remain in this area for 4 h, where physicians regularly moved between the hot zone and rest of the ED. Fifteen surface samples and four air samples were taken to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 contamination levels and the effectiveness of infection control practices. Samples were collected outside of patient rooms in 3 primary ED patient care areas, the reception area, the primary nurses station, inside the cohort area, and the PPE donning and doffing areas immediately adjacent. Samples were recovered and analyzed for the presence of the E gene of SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 was not detected on any surface samples, including in and around the cohort area. All air samples outside the COVID-19 hot zone were negative for SARS-CoV-2, but air samples within the cohort area had a low level of viral contamination. CONCLUSION: A designated COVID-19 cohort area resulted in no air or surface contamination outside of the hot zone, and only minimal air, but no surface contamination, within the hot zone.

Obesity is not associated with increased difficulty placing peripheral IVs in trauma activation patients.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have identified obesity as a risk factor for difficult IV access, but this has not been studied in the acute trauma setting. The primary objective was to determine if obesity is associated with increased difficulty placing peripheral IVs in trauma patients. Secondary analysis evaluated IV difficulty and associations with nursing self-competence ratings, trauma experience, and patient demographics. METHODS: Prospective, observational study at academic level I trauma center with 58,000 annual visits. Trauma activation patients between January and October of 2016 were included. Each nurse who attempted IV placement, completed anonymous 7 question survey, including trauma experience (years), self-competence and IV difficulty (Likert scales 1-5), and attempts. Demographic and clinical information was retrospectively collected from the EMR and nursing surveys. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and spearman correlations were used. RESULTS: 200 patients included in the study with 185 BMI calculations. 110 overweight (BMI > 25) and 48 obese (BMI > 30). 70 (35%) female, 149 (75%) white, average age 48. Increased BMI and IV difficulty displayed spearman correlation (ρ) of 0.026 (P = 0.72) suggesting against significant association. Increased trauma experience and self-competence ratings significantly correlated with decreased IV difficulty, ρ = -0.173 and -0.162 (P = 0.010 and 0.014). There was no statistically significant association with IV difficulty in regards to patient race, age, sex, or location of IV placement. CONCLUSION: Obesity was not associated with increased difficulty in placing peripheral IVs in trauma activation patients. Nurses with greater trauma experience and higher self-competence ratings, had less difficulty inserting IVs.

ED triage pain protocol reduces time to receiving analgesics in patients with painful conditions.

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that collaborative nursing protocols initiated in triage improve emergency department (ED) throughput and decrease time to treatment. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to determine if an ED triage pain protocol improves time to provision of analgesics. METHODS: Retrospective data abstracted via electronic medical record of patients at a safety net facility with 67 000 annual adult visits. Patients older than 18 years who presented to the ED between March 1, 2011, and May 31, 2013, with 1 of 6 conditions were included: back pain, dental pain, extremity trauma, sore throat, ear pain, or pain from an abscess. A 3-month orientation to an ED nurse-initiated pain protocol began on March 1, 2012. Nurses administered oral analgesics per protocol, beginning with acetaminophen or ibuprofen and progressing to oxycodone. Preimplementation and postimplementation analyses examined differences in time to analgesics. Multivariable analysis modeled time to analgesics as a function of patient factors. RESULTS: Over a 27-month period, 23 409 patients were included: 13 112 received pain medications and 10 297 did not. A total of 12 240 (52%) were male, 12 578 (54%) were African American, and 7953 (34%) were white, with a mean (SD) age of 39 years (13 years). The pain protocol was used in 1002 patients. There was a significant change in mean time (minutes) to provision of analgesics between preimplementation (238) and postimplementation (168) (P < .0001). Linear regression showed the protocol-delivered medications to younger patients and of lower acuity in a reduced time. Variables not related to time to provision of medication included sex, payer, and race. CONCLUSION: Emergency department triage pain protocol decreased time to provision of pain medications and did so without respect to payer category, sex, or race.

Diagnosis and disposition are changed when board-certified emergency physicians use CT for non-traumatic abdominal pain.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of abdominal computed tomographic (CT) scan results on diagnosis and disposition of patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain who were evaluated by board-certified emergency physicians (EPs). METHODS: Prospective, observational study conducted at a safety-net facility with an emergency medicine residency and 65000 annual adult visits. Patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain who underwent an abdominal CT from 3/2011 through 8/2011 were included. Decision to obtain CT was made by the EP. The computer order entry system required the EP to report the most likely diagnosis, and the management and disposition plan. After CT results, the same EP electronically again entered the most likely diagnosis and the planned management and disposition. CTs were interpreted by an attending radiologist. Descriptive statistics and χ(2) tests were used. RESULTS: Six hundred twenty-nine patients were entered and 547 remained after exclusions; 298 (54%) subjects had a change in diagnosis. In 6 categories, there was a statistically significant change, with non-specific abdominal pain the most common(P < .001); followed by renal colic (P < .001), appendicitis (P < .001), diverticulitis (P < .001), small bowel obstruction (P < .029), and gynecologic process (P < .001). The most common disposition plan was "admit for observation," which was reported in 262 patients and remained in only 122 post CT (47%); 301 (54%) patients whose initial plan was admission were ultimately managed otherwise. CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal CT use by board certified EPs for nontraumatic abdominal pain changed diagnosis and disposition, with more sent home in lieu of admission. Diagnostic accuracy did not appear to be related to years of clinical experience.