A new modality for the estimation of corrected flow time via electrocardiography as an alternative to Doppler ultrasonography.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of corrected flow time (FTc) via ultrasonography is one of the suggested modalities for the assessment of intravascular volume status. This study aimed to compare the results of FTc of carotid artery measured via ultrasonography, as a measure of mechanical outcome of the cardiac cycle, with the results of FTc estimation from a new modified formula via electrocardiography (ECG), as a measure of electrical function of the cardiac cycle. METHODS: Healthy volunteers were evaluated before and after a passive leg raising (PLR) maneuver. FTc was measured concurrently before and after PLR via a modified method from ECG and via ultrasonography of the carotid artery. RESULTS: A total number of 98 healthy volunteers (51 women and 47 men) with a mean age of 30.69 ± 6.28 years were included. There was a significant correlation between FTc measured by ultrasonography and estimated by ECG both before PLR and after PLR (r = .878, p < .0001 and r = .797, p < .0001, respectively). Changes in FTc were slightly higher in measurements by ultrasonography compared to estimations by ECG (22.33 ± 17.15 ms0.5 vs. 15.86 ± 14.25 ms0.5 , p = .001). CONCLUSION: Estimation of FTc via ECG is potentially an effective and feasible method for the assessment of volume status at the clinical settings. Further investigations should determine the significance of differences that may be observed between ultrasonography and ECG in patients with either dehydration or volume overload and in the need of real-time volume status assessment.

Comparing the brain CT scan interpretation of emergency medicine team with radiologists' report and its impact on patients' outcome.

Requesting non-enhanced brain CT scans for trauma and non-trauma patients in ER is very common. In this study, the impact of incorrect brain CT scan interpretations by emergency medicine team on patients' primary and secondary outcome was evaluated in the setting where neuroradiologist reports are not always available. During a 3-month period, 450 patients were enrolled and followed for 28 days. All CT scans were interpreted by the emergency medicine team, and the patients were managed accordingly. Neuroradiologists' reports were considered as gold standard, and the patients were then grouped into the agreement or disagreement group. A panel of experts further evaluated the disagreement group and placed them in clinically significant and insignificant. The agreement rate between emergency medicine team and neuroradiologists was 86.4 %. The inter-rater reliability between emergency team and neuroradiologists was substantial (kappa = 0.68) and statistically significant (p < 0.0001). Only five patients did not receive the necessary management, and among them, only one patient died, and 12 patients received unnecessary management including repeated CT scan, brain MRI, and lumbar puncture. Forty-one patients were managed clinically appropriate in spite of misinterpretation. A 28-day follow-up showed a mortality rate of 0.2 %; however, expert panel believed the death of this patient was not related to the CT scan misinterpretation. We conclude that although the disagreement rate in this study was 13.6 %, primary and secondary outcomes were not clinically jeopardized according to the expert panel idea and 28-day follow-up results.

Validity of Triage Performed by Nurses Educated by Train-of-Trainer Workshop Participants; a Cross-sectional Study for Assessment of Cascade Training System.

INTRODUCTION: In 2010, a national triage train-of-trainer (TOT) workshop was held in Tehran, Iran. OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to assess the validity of the triage performed by the nurses educated by those who participated in TOT workshop. METHOD: This cross-sectional study was carried out in 6 teaching hospitals from 4 universities in Iran. Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of performed triage by participations was measured. Thirteen nurses were randomly selected. Thereafter, at the end of each working shift, patient data recorded in the daily data registry forms were collected. Then, duration of hospital stay, number of cases admitted to general wards or intensive care units, number of cases discharged from the ED within 12 hours and mortality rate were compared with the triage level determined by the nurse. RESULTS: In total, 30 nurses with a mean age of 28.4 ± 3.7 years were enrolled. In this study, 1491 triage cases (61.6% male) were evaluated, of which 4.2% were triaged as level 1, 18.3% as level 2, 37.1% as level 3, 20.4% as level 4 and 20.0% as level 5. The following outcome was observed: 3.64% were discharged, 6.29% were hospitalized, 3% died and 2.3% were discharged against medical advice without completing treatment. The correlation of determined triage level and patients' duration of hospitalization was significant based on one-way ANOVA test (p = 0.000). The outcome of the patients significantly correlated with the level of triage determined by the study nurses (p = 0.000). CONCLUSION: Based on the findings, it appears that triage performed by the study nurses educated by those who participated in TOT workshop through cascade training system had perfect validity.

Atypical Presentation of Acute Appendicitis: A 32-year-old Man with Gastroenteritis Symptoms; an Educational Case.

INTRODUCTION: Appendicitis is a common condition that almost always requires emergency surgery. The diagnosis is clear when the patient presents with classic symptoms. However, presentation may be variable due to variations in the position and length of the appendix. CASE PRESENTATION: Here, we report a 32-year-old man who presented with diarrhea and lower abdominal pain. Physical examination revealed a generalized abdominal tenderness, more prominent in the lower abdomen, including the right and left quadrants. Abdominal ultrasound failed to show any findings supportive of the diagnosis of appendicitis. Further investigation with abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) with intravenous and oral contrast revealed retrocecal appendicitis. The patient was discharged home after a non-complicated appendectomy. CONCLUSION: Emergency physicians should be aware that appendicitis may not always show up with a typical presentation and they should consider the possibility of appendicitis when evaluating an acute abdomen to prevent any delay in diagnosis of atypical presentations.

Do Patients with Chest Pain Benefit from Installing Triage System in Emergency Department?

INTRODUCTION: Chest pain, which can be cardiac or non-cardiac and either benign or life-threatening, needs appropriate diagnosis and treatment in emergency department (ED). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare delivery time of primary care for patients with chest pain before and after applying triage system in ED. METHODS: Medical records were reviewed of thirty patients (group one) with chief complaint of chest pain who referred to ED between April and July 2008 (before installing triage system) and thirty-five patients (group two) with the same chief complaint who referred between August and September 2009 (after installing triage system). Time between patients' arrival and beginning of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions including cardiac monitoring, first physician visit time, intravenous line insertion, and electrocardiogram performance were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Based on the findings, the mean age and sex ratio of studied patients in the two groups were not significantly different (p>0.05). Door to ECG performance, Door to intravenous line insertion, and Door to cardiac monitoring were significantly shorter in post triage installing period than previously (p<0.001). Door to first visit by physician was not statistically different in the two study periods (p=0.421). CONCLUSION: It is likely that patients with chest pain who referred to ED benefit from installing triage system in terms of performing some nursing care including ECG performance, starting cardiac monitoring, and IV insertion.

Outcome-Based Validity and Reliability Assessment of Raters Regarding the Admission Triage Level in the Emergency Department: a Cross-Sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency department (ED) is usually the first line of healthcare supply to patients in non-urgent to critical situations and, if necessary, provides hospital admission. A dynamic system to evaluate patients and allocate priorities is necessary. Such a structure that facilitates patients' flow in the ED is termed triage. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to investigate the validity and reliability of implementation of Emergency Severity Index (ESI) system version 4 by triage nurses in an overcrowded referral hospital with more than 80000 patient admissions per year and an average emergency department occupancy rate of more than 80%. METHOD: This prospective cross-sectional study was conducted in a tertiary care teaching hospital and trauma center with an emergency medicine residency program. Seven participating expert nurses were asked to assess the ESI level of patients in 30 written scenarios twice within a three-week interval to evaluate the inter-rater and intra-rater reliability. Patients were randomly selected to participate in the study, and the triage level assigned by the nurses was compared with that by the emergency physicians. Finally, based on the patients' charts, an expert panel evaluated the validity of the triage level. RESULTS: During the study period, 527 patients with mean age of 54 ± 7 years, including 253 (48%) women and 274 (52%) men, were assessed by seven trained triage nurses. The degree of retrograde agreement between the collaborated expert panel's evaluation and the actual triage scales by the nurses and physicians for all 5 levels was excellent, with the Cohen's weighted kappa being 0.966 (CI 0.985-0.946, p < 0.001) and 0.813 (CI 0.856-0.769, p<0.001), respectively. The intra-rater reliability was 0.94 (p < 0.0001), and the inter-rater reliability for all the nurses was in perfect agreement with the test result (Cohen's weighted kappa were as follows: 0.919, 0.956, 0.911, 0.955, 0.860, 0.956, and 0.868; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The study findings showed that there was perfect reliability and, overall, almost perfect validity for the triage performed by the studied nurses.