[Interprofessional simulation in emergency medicine]. / Simulation interprofessionnelle en médecine d'urgence.

Teamwork is essential in emergency medicine, but in practice it can be polluted by communication difficulties, a lack of understanding of everyone's roles and responsibilities, and a discordant definition of operating methods and objectives. Today, there is a strong awareness of the need to train medical and healthcare teams in interprofessional collaborative practice to learn how to work as a team, reduce medical errors and improve patient safety. Simulation is a recognized and effective pedagogical modality for achieving these objectives. It is now permanently established in pre- and postgraduate medical-nursing training courses in emergency medicine.

Le travail en équipe est indispensable en médecine d'urgence mais, dans la pratique, il peut être pollué par des difficultés de communication, une méconnaissance des rôles et responsabilités de chacun, et une définition discordante des modes de fonctionnement et des objectifs. Aujourd'hui, il y a une forte prise de conscience de la nécessité de former les équipes médico­soignantes à la pratique collaborative interprofessionnelle pour apprendre à travailler en équipe, réduire les erreurs médicales et améliorer la sécurité des patient-e-s. La simulation est une modalité pédagogique reconnue et efficace pour atteindre ces objectifs. Elle est désormais implantée de façon pérenne dans les cursus de formation médico-soignante pré et postgraduée en médecine d'urgence.

[Hemorrhagic shock]. / Choc hémorragique.

Shock is a life threatening condition. The management of an hemorrhagic shock, whether traumatic or not, requires early identification of the bleeding source and adequate hemodynamic support. The diagnosis accuracy is based on clinical, hemodynamic, radiologic and biochemical findings which also allow appraisal of the treatment efficiency. Treatment should be goal-oriented with rapid hemorrhage control by surgery, interventional radiology or drug support. Circulatory resuscitation is aimed to restore adequate tissue perfusion and oxygenation and should be closely monitored.

Evaluation of a Portable Blood Gas Analyzer for Prehospital Triage in Carbon Monoxide Poisoning: Instrument Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: Carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning is an important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Symptoms are mostly aspecific, making it hard to identify, and its diagnosis is usually made through blood gas analysis. However, the bulkiness of gas analyzers prevents them from being used at the scene of the incident, thereby leading to the unnecessary transport and admission of many patients. While multiple-wavelength pulse oximeters have been developed to discriminate carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) from oxyhemoglobin, their reliability is debatable, particularly in the hostile prehospital environment. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this pilot study was to assess whether the Avoximeter 4000, a transportable blood gas analyzer, could be considered for prehospital triage. METHODS: This was a monocentric, prospective, pilot evaluation study. Blood samples were analyzed sequentially with 2 devices: the Avoximeter 4000 (experimental), which performs direct measurements on blood samples of about 50 µL by analyzing light absorption at 5 different wavelengths; and the ABL827 FLEX (control), which measures COHb levels through an optical system composed of a 128-wavelength spectrophotometer. The blood samples belonged to 2 different cohorts: the first (clinical cohort) was obtained in an emergency department and consisted of 68 samples drawn from patients admitted for reasons other than CO poisoning. These samples were used to determine whether the Avoximeter 4000 could properly exclude the diagnosis. The second (forensic) cohort was derived from the regional forensic center, which provided 12 samples from documented CO poisoning. RESULTS: The mean COHb level in the clinical cohort was 1.7% (SD 1.8%; median 1.2%, IQR 0.7%-1.9%) with the ABL827 FLEX versus 3.5% (SD 2.3%; median 3.1%, IQR 2.2%-4.1%) with the Avoximeter 4000. Therefore, the Avoximeter 4000 overestimated COHb levels by a mean difference of 1.8% (95% CI 1.5%-2.1%). The consistency of COHb readings by the Avoximeter 4000 was excellent, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.97 (95% CI 0.93-0.99) when the same blood sample was analyzed repeatedly. Using prespecified cutoffs (5% in nonsmokers and 10% in smokers), 3 patients (4%) had high COHb levels according to the Avoximeter 4000, while their values were within the normal range according to the ABL827 FLEX. Therefore, the specificity of the Avoximeter 4000 in this cohort was 95.6% (95% CI 87%-98.6%), and the overtriage rate would have been 4.4% (95% CI 1.4%-13%). Regarding the forensic samples, 10 of 12 (83%) samples were positive with both devices, while the 2 remaining samples were negative with both devices. CONCLUSIONS: The limited difference in COHb level measurements between the Avoximeter 4000 and the control device, which erred on the side of safety, and the relatively low overtriage rate warrant further exploration of this device as a prehospital triage tool.

[Iron-deficient anemia, anemia of chronic disease or mixed anemia: how to determine the diagnosis?]. / Anémie ferriprive, inflammatoir ou mixte: comment orienter le diagnostic?

The diagnosis of pure iron-deficient anemia or anemia of chronic disease is easy. However, in mixed situations, conventional laboratory tests for iron status are influenced by the inflammatory response and their diagnostic accuracy may be undermined. New tests are available but grey zones and diagnostic uncertainties sometimes remain. The objective of this article is to give an overview of the current diagnostic tools for the evaluation of the iron metabolism and to provide a practical diagnostic algorithm for the evaluation of iron-deficient anemia.

Learning process of ultrasound-guided Ilio-fascial compartment block on a simulator: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound-guided fascia iliaca compartment block (US-FICB) is not part of the learning curriculum of the emergency physicians (EP) and is usually performed by anesthesiologists. However, several studies promote EP to use this procedure. The goal of this study was to assess the feasibility of a training concept for non-anesthesiologists for the US-FICB on a simulator based on a validating learning path. METHOD: This was a feasibility study. Emergency physicians and medical students received a 1-day training with a learning phase (theoretical and practical skills), followed by an assessment phase. The primary outcome at the assessment phase was the number of attempts before successfully completing the procedure. The secondary outcomes were the success rate at first attempt, the length of procedure (LOP), and the stability of the probe, corresponding to the visualization of the needle tip (and its tracking) throughout the procedure, evaluated on a Likert scale. RESULTS: A total of 25 participants were included. The median number of attempts was 2.0 for emergency physicians and 2.5 for medical students, and this difference was not significant (p = 0.140). Seven participants (28%) succeeded at the first attempt of the procedure; the difference between emergency physicians and medical students was not significant (37% versus 21%; p = 0.409). The average LOP was 19.7 min with a significant difference between emergency physicians and medical students (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference regarding the stability of the probe between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Our 1-day training for non-anesthesiologists with or without previous skills in ultrasound seems to be feasible for learning the US-FICB procedure on a simulator.