The use of additional imaging studies after biliary point-of-care ultrasound in the emergency department.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine the test characteristics of biliary point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) and to assess the usefulness of obtaining radiology ultrasound (RUS) or cholescintigraphy (HIDA) after biliary POCUS. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of emergency department patients who underwent biliary POCUS between May 4, 2018 and November 28, 2021. To be included, patients had to have at least one of the following confirmatory evaluations (considered in this order): surgery, HIDA, RUS, or abdominal CT scan. When a discrepancy existed between the POCUS and the RUS or HIDA, they were compared to a higher criterion standard (if available). RESULTS: Using 348 patients who had a confirmatory evaluation after biliary POCUS, we found the sensitivity and specificity of biliary POCUS for gallstones to be 97.0% (95% CI 92.6 to 99.2%) and 99.5% (95% CI 97.3 to 100%), respectively. For cholecystitis, the sensitivity and specificity were 83.8% (95% CI 72.9 to 91.6%) and 98.6% (95% CI 96.4 to 99.6%), respectively. RUS and POCUS were concordant in 72 (81.8%) of 88 cases in which the patient had both studies while HIDA and POCUS were concordant in 24 (70.6%) of 34 cases. POCUS was deemed correct in at least 50% of discrepant cases with RUS and at least 30% of discrepant cases with HIDA. CONCLUSION: Biliary POCUS has excellent sensitivity and specificity for cholelithiasis; it has lower sensitivity for cholecystitis, but the specificity remains high. Performing a confirmatory RUS or cholescintigraphy after a positive biliary POCUS adds little value, but additional imaging may be useful when POCUS is negative for cholecystitis.

How Much Time Do Residents Spend on Inpatient Clinical Computing?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the time that residents spend on clinical computing. METHODS: Our electronic health record system was used to record clinical computing time. Residents were unaware that we were tracking their time. Prior studies have reported computing times by watching the users. We evaluated residents in internal medicine, general surgery, and emergency medicine. The postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) and PGY3 residents were evaluated in July 2016 and January 2017. RESULTS: Emergency medicine residents spent approximately 3 hours/day and internal medicine and general surgery residents spent approximately 2 hours/day on clinical computing. For internal medicine and general surgery, there was a decrease in time spent on clinical computing from July to January and from PGY1 to PGY3. CONCLUSIONS: Residents in some specialties may decrease the time spent on clinical computing. There are many possible reasons for the changes. Our study serves as a computerized observation baseline for future assessments, interventions, and for developing improvements that increase the value of clinical computing.

Intravenous diltiazem infusions for rapid atrial fibrillation or flutter in the emergency department: A retrospective, exploratory analysis.

BACKGROUND: Emergency physicians commonly treat patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter (AFL) with rapid ventricular response, and intravenous (IV) diltiazem is the most commonly used medication for rate control of such patients. We sought to compare rate control success and safety outcomes for emergency department (ED) patients with AF or AFL who, after a diltiazem bolus, received a diltiazem drip compared to those who did not receive a drip. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study comparing outcomes of ED patients from a single hospital system with AF and AFL and a heart rate (HR) > 100 beats/min who received a diltiazem drip after an IV diltiazem bolus to those who received no drip. The primary outcome was a HR < 100 beats/min at the time of ED disposition. Secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay and safety (hypotension, electrical cardioversion, vasopressor use, and death). We compared groups using propensity score matching. RESULTS: Between January 1, 2020, and November 8, 2022, there were 746 AF or AFL patients eligible for analysis. Of those, 382 (51.2%) received a diltiazem drip and 364 (48.8%) did not. In the unadjusted analysis, the last recorded ED HR was <100 beats/min in 55.2% of patients in the drip group compared to 65.9% in the no-drip group (difference 10.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.7 to 17.7). After propensity matching, diltiazem drip use was associated with lower likelihood of rate control in the ED (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.48-0.99) and 22.5 h (95% CI 12.2-36.8) longer hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with AF or AFL, the use of a diltiazem drip after an IV diltiazem bolus was associated with less rate control in the ED.