Emergency Medicine Telehealth: A Pandemic Becomes a Gateway for Virtual Care in Missouri.

Telehealth provides a novel bridge between patient needs and available resources. On-demand telehealth visits provide urgent medical services in a virtual setting. Telehealth can be used to provide care for patients despite geographical distance. Emergency Medicine quickly adapted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic through utilization of telehealth to solve various problems. Tele-triage was used to coordinate COVID-19 testing and treatment. Greater utilization of all current and emerging telehealth modalities could increase access and quality of care for all Missourians.

Central Venous Catheter Adverse Events Are not Associated with Crowding Indicators.

OBJECTIVE: Crowding in the emergency department (ED) impacts a number of important quality and safety metrics. We studied ED crowding measures associated with adverse events (AE) resulting from central venous catheters (CVC) inserted in the ED, as well as the relationship between crowding and the frequency of CVC insertions in an ED cohort admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study from 2008-2010 in an academic tertiary care center. Participants undergoing CVC in the ED or admitted to an ICU were categorized by quartile based on the following: National Emergency Department Overcrowding Scale (NEDOCS); waiting room patients (WR); ED patients awaiting inpatient beds (boarders); and ED occupancy (EDO). Main outcomes were the occurrence of an AE during CVC insertion in the ED, and deferred procedures assessed by frequency of CVC insertions in ED patients admitted to the ICU. RESULTS: Of 2,284 ED patients who had a CVC inserted, 293 (13%) suffered an AE. There was no association between AEs from ED CVCs and crowding scales when comparing the highest crowding level or quartile to all other quartiles: NEDOCS (dangerous crowding [13.1%] vs other levels [13.0%], P = 0.98); number of WR patients (14.0% vs 12.7%, P = 0.81); EDO (13.0% vs 12.9%, P = 0.99); and number of boarding patients (12.0% vs 13.3%), P = 0.21). In a cohort of ED patients admitted to the ICU, there was no association between CVC placement rates in the ED and crowding scales comparing the highest vs all other quartiles: NEDOCS (dangerous crowding 16% vs all others 16%, P = 0.97); WR patients (16% vs 16%, P = 0.82), EDO (15% vs. 17%, P = 0.15); and number of boarding patients (17% vs 16%, P = 0.08). CONCLUSION: In a large, academic tertiary-care center, frequency of CVC insertion in the ED and related AEs were not associated with measures of crowding. These findings add to the evidence that the negative effects of crowding, which impact all ED patients and measures of ED performance, are less likely to impair the delivery of prioritized time-critical interventions.

A descriptive comparison of ultrasound-guided central venous cannulation of the internal jugular vein to landmark-based subclavian vein cannulation.

OBJECTIVES: The safest site for central venous cannulation (CVC) remains debated. Many emergency physicians (EPs) advocate the ultrasound-guided internal jugular (USIJ) approach because of data supporting its efficiency. However, a number of physicians prefer, and are most comfortable with, the subclavian (SC) vein approach. The purpose of this study was to describe adverse event rates among operators using the USIJ approach, and the landmark SC vein approach without US. METHODS: This was a prospective observational trial of patients undergoing CVC of the SC or internal jugular veins in the emergency department (ED). Physicians performing the procedures did not undergo standardized training in either technique. The primary outcome was a composite of adverse events defined as hematoma, arterial cannulation, pneumothorax, and failure to cannulate. Physicians recorded the anatomical site of cannulation, US assistance, indications, and acute complications. Variables of interest were collected from the pharmacy and ED record. Physician experience was based on a self-reported survey. The authors followed outcomes of central line insertion until device removal or patient discharge. RESULTS: Physicians attempted 236 USIJ and 132 SC cannulations on 333 patients. The overall adverse event rate was 22% with failure to cannulate being the most common. Adverse events occurred in 19% of USIJ attempts, compared to 29% of non-US-guided SC attempts. Among highly experienced operators, CVCs placed at the SC site resulted in more adverse events than those performed using USIJ (relative risk [RR] = 1.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05 to 3.39). CONCLUSIONS: While limited by observational design, our results suggest that the USIJ technique may result in fewer adverse events compared to the landmark SC approach.