Does Point-of-Care Ultrasonography Improve Clinical Outcomes in Emergency Department Patients With Undifferentiated Hypotension? An International Randomized Controlled Trial From the SHoC-ED Investigators.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Point-of-care ultrasonography protocols are commonly used in the initial management of patients with undifferentiated hypotension in the emergency department (ED). There is little published evidence for any mortality benefit. We compare the effect of a point-of-care ultrasonography protocol versus standard care without point-of-care ultrasonography for survival and clinical outcomes. METHODS: This international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial recruited from 6 centers in North America and South Africa and included selected hypotensive patients (systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg or shock index >1) randomized to early point-of-care ultrasonography plus standard care versus standard care without point-of-care ultrasonography. Diagnoses were recorded at 0 and 60 minutes. The primary outcome measure was survival to 30 days or hospital discharge. Secondary outcome measures included initial treatment and investigations, admissions, and length of stay. RESULTS: Follow-up was completed for 270 of 273 patients. The most common diagnosis in more than half the patients was occult sepsis. We found no important differences between groups for the primary outcome of survival (point-of-care ultrasonography group 104 of 136 patients versus standard care 102 of 134 patients; difference 0.35%; 95% binomial confidence interval [CI] -10.2% to 11.0%), survival in North America (point-of-care ultrasonography group 76 of 89 patients versus standard care 72 of 88 patients; difference 3.6%; CI -8.1% to 15.3%), and survival in South Africa (point-of-care ultrasonography group 28 of 47 patients versus standard care 30 of 46 patients; difference 5.6%; CI -15.2% to 26.0%). There were no important differences in rates of computed tomography (CT) scanning, inotrope or intravenous fluid use, and ICU or total length of stay. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled trial to compare point-of-care ultrasonography to standard care without point-of-care ultrasonography in undifferentiated hypotensive ED patients. We did not find any benefits for survival, length of stay, rates of CT scanning, inotrope use, or fluid administration. The addition of a point-of-care ultrasonography protocol to standard care may not translate into a survival benefit in this group.

A comparison of work stressors in higher and lower resourced emergency medicine health settings.

OBJECTIVES: The study compares experiences of workplace stressors for emergency medicine trainees and specialists in settings where the specialty is relatively well resourced and established (Canada), and where it is newer and less well resourced (South Africa, (SA)). METHODS: We conducted an online cross-sectional survey of emergency medicine trainees and physicians in both countries for six domains (demands, role, support, change, control, and relationships) using the validated Management Standards Indicator Tool (MSIT, Health, and Safety Executive, United Kingdom). RESULTS: 74 SA and 430 Canadian respondents were included in our analysis. SA trainees (n=38) reported higher stressors (lower MSIT scores) than SA specialists (n=36) for demands (2.2 (95%CI 2.1-2.3) vs. 2.7 (2.5-2.8)), control (2.6 (2.4-2.7) vs. 3.5 (3.3-3.7)) and change (2.4 (2.2-2.6) vs. 3.0 (2.7-3.3)). In Canada, specialists (n=395) had higher demands (2.6 (2.6-2.7) vs. 3.0 (2.8-3.1)) and manager support stressors (3.3 (3.3-3.4) vs. 3.9 (3.6-4.1)) than trainees (n=35). Canadian trainees reported higher role stressors (4.0 (95%CI 3.8-4.1) vs. 4.2 (4.2-4.3)) than Canadian specialists. SA trainees had higher stressors on all domains than Canadian trainees. There was one domain (control) where Canadian specialists scored significantly lower than SA specialists, whereas SA specialists had significantly lower scores on peer support, relationships and role. CONCLUSIONS: Work related stressor domains were different for all four groups. Perceived stressors were higher in all measured domains among SA trainees compared with Canadian trainees. The differences between the SA and Canadian specialists may reflect the developing nature of the specialty in SA, although the Canadian specialists reported less control over their work than SA counterparts.

Adapting prehospital care to a large rural geographic area: a review of the Emergency Health Services Nova Scotia implementation.

Nova Scotia is building a system of prehospital care based on four principles: "Fail Safe" government ownership; "Full Service" advanced life support capable; "High Performance" resource efficiency; and "Fiscally Responsible" performance goals, incentives and penalties. Emergency Health Services Nova Scotia exercises funding and regulatory control through service provided by a private contractor. Benefits include improved fleet and equipment management, information systems, 911 dispatch and performance tracking, medical control and paramedic care, and public accountability. Problems include rural dispatch, budget costs, labour issues and stakeholder communication.

A method for reviewing the accuracy and reliability of a five-level triage process (canadian triage and acuity scale) in a community emergency department setting: building the crowding measurement infrastructure.

Objectives. Triage data are widely used to evaluate patient flow, disease severity, and emergency department (ED) workload, factors used in ED crowding evaluation and management. We defined an indicator-based methodology that can be easily used to review the accuracy of Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) performance. Methods. A trained nurse reviewer (NR) retrospectively triaged two separate month's ED charts relative to a set of clinical indicators based on CTAS Chief Complaints. Interobserver reliability and accuracy were compared using Kappa and comparative statistics. Results. There were 2838 patients in Trial 1 and 3091 in Trial 2. The rate of inconsistent triage was 14% and 16% (Kappa 0.596 and 0.604). Clinical Indicators "pain scale, chest pain, musculoskeletal injury, respiratory illness, and headache" captured 68% and 62% of visits. Conclusions. We have demonstrated a system to measure the levels of process accuracy and reliability for triage over time. We identified five key clinical indicators which captured over 60% of visits. A simple method for quality review uses a small set of indicators, capturing a majority of cases. Performance consistency and data collection using indicators may be important areas to direct training efforts.