What adult patients prefer for reporting their pain levels, and frequency of reassessment when in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: This study interviewed adult patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) for various pain conditions enquiring about their preferred tool for reporting pain severity and preferred time interval between initial assessment and subsequent pain reassessments. METHODS: A prospective observational (cross-sectional) study was conducted in adult patients with acute pain in a tertiary care hospital ED setting. Patients' initial pain score was recorded using NRS (numerical rating scale) pain scale, and appropriate analgesia offered. Once the patient had been evaluated by an attending physician, a research team member interviewed the patient regarding the pain reassessment time and preferred pain assessment tool. The pain assessment tools evaluated in this study were NRS, PS (picture scale or face pain scale), VRS (verbal rating scale), and VAS (visual analogue scale). The patients were presented with the four pain assessment tools (in their primary language) through an audio-visual on an electronic tablet display. RESULTS: 200 (138 male, mean age 36.5 ± 11.17) patients participated in the study. With increasing age, pain reassessment interval increased by 0.19 min (95% CI 0.03-0.36 min). Males requested pain reassessment 6.7 min (95% CI 2.2-10.8) faster than females. In this study, the preferred interval for pain reassessment was reported as a mean of 22.8 (SD + -13.6) minutes. There was no relationship reported between time reassessment and pain severity (P = 0.22). Out of 200 subjects, irrespective of the initial pain scores, 100 preferred NRS. NRS was preferred by patients with mild to moderated pain due to the perception of being faster. However, patients with severe pain choose a non-NRS scale to prioritize accuracy. CONCLUSION: There was no influence found between the initial pain severity scores and the desired frequency of pain reassessment. However, associations were identified between the time for pain reassessment interval and age, sex, and geographical region. Patients with severe pain preferred PS or VRS while patients with mild/moderate pain preferred the NRS.

Comparison of intravenous paracetamol (acetaminophen) to intravenously or intramuscularly administered non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or opioids for patients presenting with moderate to severe acute pain conditions to the ED: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opiates/opioids, administered parenterally via intravenous or intramuscular route, are widely used to provide analgesia for patients with moderate to severe pain. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the level of analgesia provided by intravenous paracetamol (IVP) alone compared with NSAIDs (intravenous or intramuscular), or opioids (intravenous) alone in adults attending the ED with acute pain. METHODS: Two authors independently searched PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Embase (OVID), Cochrane Library, SCOPUS and Google Scholar (3 March 2021-20 May 2022) for randomised trials without any language or date restriction. Clinical trials were evaluated using the Risk of Bias V.2 tool. The primary outcome was mean difference (MD) for pain reduction at 30 min (T30) post analgesia delivery. The secondary outcomes were MD in pain reduction at 60, 90 and 120 min; the need for rescue analgesia; and the occurrence of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Twenty-seven trials (5427 patients) were included in the systematic review and 25 trials (5006 patients) in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in pain reduction at T30 between the IVP group and opioids (MD -0.13, 95% CI -1.49 to 1.22) or IVP and NSAIDs (MD -0.27, 95% CI -1.0 to 1.54. There was also no difference at 60 min, IVP group versus opioid group (MD -0.09, 95% CI -2.69 to 2.52) or IVP versus NSAIDs (MD 0.51, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.91). The quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development and Evaluations methodology was low for MD in pain scores.The need for rescue analgesia at T30 was significantly higher in the IVP group compared with the NSAID group (risk ratio (RR): 1.50, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.83), with no difference found between the IVP group and the opioid group (RR: 1.07, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.70). AEs were 50% lower in the IVP group compared with the opioid group (RR: 0.50, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.62), whereas no difference was observed in the IVP group compared with the NSAID group (RR: 1.30, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.15). CONCLUSION: In patients presenting to the ED with a diverse range of pain conditions, IVP provides similar levels of pain relief compared with opiates/opioids or NSAIDs at T30 post administration. Patients treated with NSAIDs had lower risk of rescue analgesia, and opioids cause more AEs, suggesting NSAIDs as the first-choice analgesia and IVP as a suitable alternative. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021240099.

Ethnic differences in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest among Middle Eastern Arabs and North African populations living in Qatar.

Aims: There are very few studies comparing epidemiology and outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in different ethnic groups. Previous ethnicity studies have mostly determined OHCA differences between African American and Caucasian populations. The aim of this study was to compare epidemiology, clinical presentation, and outcomes of OHCA between the local Middle Eastern Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Arab and the migrant North African populations living in Qatar.Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of Middle Eastern GCC Arabs and migrant North African patients with presumed cardiac origin OHCA resuscitated by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in Qatar, between June 2012 and May 2015.Results: There were 285 Middle Eastern GCC Arabs and 112 North African OHCA patients enrolled during the study period. Compared with the local GCC Arabs, univariate analysis showed that the migrant North African OHCA patients were younger and had higher odds of initial shockable rhythm, pre-hospital interventions (defibrillation and amioderone), pre-hospital scene time, and decreased odds of risk factors (hypertension, respiratory disease, and diabetes) and pre-hospital response time. The survival to hospital discharge had greater odds for North African OHCA patients which did not persist after adjustment. Multivariable logistic regression showed that North Africans were associated with lower odds of diabetes (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25-0.91, p = 0.03), and higher odds of initial shockable rhythm (OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.30-6.33, p = 0.01) and greater scene time (OR 1.02 95% CI 1.0-1.04, p = 0.02).Conclusions: North African migrant OHCA patients were younger, had decreased risk factors and favourable OHCA rhythm and received greater ACLS interventions with shorter pre-hospital response times and longer scene times leading to better survival.

Qatar Prediction Rule Using ED Indicators of COVID-19 at Triage.

INTRODUCTION: The presence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its associated disease, COVID-19 has had an enormous impact on the operations of the emergency department (ED), particularly the triage area. The aim of the study was to derive and validate a prediction rule that would be applicable to Qatar's adult ED population to predict COVID-19-positive patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective study including adult patients. The data were obtained from the electronic medical records (EMR) of the Hamad Medical Corporation (HMC) for three EDs. Data from the Hamad General Hospital ED were used to derive and internally validate a prediction rule (Q-PREDICT). The Al Wakra Hospital ED and Al Khor Hospital ED data formed an external validation set consisting of the same time frame. The variables in the model included the weekly ED COVID-19-positivity rate and the following patient characteristics: region (nationality), age, acuity, cough, fever, tachypnea, hypoxemia, and hypotension. All statistical analyses were executed with Stata 16.1 (Stata Corp). The study team obtained appropriate institutional approval. RESULTS: The study included 45,663 adult patients who were tested for COVID-19. Out of these, 47% (n = 21461) were COVID-19 positive. The derivation-set model had very good discrimination (c = 0.855, 95% Confidence intervals (CI) 0.847-0.861). Cross-validation of the model demonstrated that the validation-set model (c = 0.857, 95% CI 0.849-0.863) retained high discrimination. A high Q-PREDICT score ( ≥ 13) is associated with a nearly 6-fold increase in the likelihood of being COVID-19 positive (likelihood ratio 5.9, 95% CI 5.6-6.2), with a sensitivity of 84.7% (95% CI, 84.0%-85.4%). A low Q-PREDICT ( ≤ 6) is associated with a nearly 20-fold increase in the likelihood of being COVID-19 negative (likelihood ratio 19.3, 95% CI 16.7-22.1), with a specificity of 98.7% (95% CI 98.5%-98.9%). CONCLUSION: The Q-PREDICT is a simple scoring system based on information readily collected from patients at the front desk of the ED and helps to predict COVID-19 status at triage. The scoring system performed well in the internal and external validation on datasets obtained from the state of Qatar.

Q-DEPICT: Qatar Determining Emergency Physician Incidence of COVID-Positive Testing.

Despite protective measures such as personal protective equipment (PPE) and a COVID airway management program (CAMP), some emergency physicians will inevitably test positive for COVID. We aim to develop a model predicting weekly numbers of emergency physician COVID converters to aid operations planning. The data were obtained from the electronic medical record (EMR) used throughout the national healthcare system. Hamad Medical Corporation's internal emergency medicine workforce data were used as a source of information on emergency physician COVID conversion and numbers of emergency physicians completing CAMP training. The study period included the spring and summer months of 2020 and started on March 7 and ran for 21 whole weeks through July 31. Data were extracted from the system's EMR database into a spreadsheet (Excel, Microsoft, Redmond, USA). The statistical software used for all analyses and plots was Stata (version 16.1 MP, StataCorp, College Station, USA). All data definitions were made a priori. A total of 35 of 250 emergency physicians (14.0%, 95% CI 9.9%-19.9%) converted to a positive real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) during the study's 21-week period. Of these. only two were hospitalized for having respiratory-only disease, and none required respiratory support. Both were discharged within a week of admission. The weekly number of newly COVID-positive emergency physicians was zero and was seen in eight of 21 (38.1%) weeks. The peak weekly counts of six emergency physicians with new COVID-positive were seen in week 14. The mean weekly number of newly COVID-positive emergency physicians was 1.7 ± 1.9, and the median was 1 (IQR, 0 to 3). This study demonstrates that in the State of Qatar's Emergency Department (ED) system, knowing only four parameters allows the reliable prediction of the number of emergency physicians likely to convert COVID PCR tests within the next week. The results also suggest that attention to the details of minimizing endotracheal intubation (ETI) risk can eliminate the expected finding of the association between ETI numbers and emergency physician COVID numbers.

The Impact of On-duty Emergency Medicine Trainees on Left-Without-Being-Seen Rates in an Academic Emergency Department.

Objectives: One of the endpoints for assessing the emergency department (ED) performance is the left-without-being-seen (LWBS) proportion. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of increasing proportions of on-duty emergency medicine (EM) trainees on LWBS rates in clinical shifts. Methods: The study was conducted at an urban-academic-ED (annual census: 452,757) over a period of one year. We employed multivariate linear regression (p < 0.05) defining significance to identify and adjust for multiple LWBS influencers related to patient care. Results: After analyzing over 1098 shifts, the median LWBS rate was 8.9% (interquartile range 5.3% to 13.5%). The increasing number of EM trainees in the ED did not adversely impact the LWBS; the opposite was noted. In univariate analysis, the increasing proportion of on-duty EM trainee physicians was significantly (p < 0.001) associated with a decrease in the LWBS rates. The multivariate model adjusted for the statistically significant and confounding LWBS influencers, with an absolute increase of 1% in trainees' proportion of overall on-duty physician coverage, was associated with an absolute decrease of 2.1% in LWBS rates (95% confidence interval 0.43% to 3.8%, p = 0.014). Conclusions: At the study site, there was a statistically and operationally significant improvement in LWBS associated with partial replacement of board-certified specialist-grade EM physicians with EM residents and fellow trainees.

Intramuscular versus oral diclofenac for acute pain in adults with acute musculoskeletal injuries presenting to the ED setting: a prospective, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The current study aimed to ascertain differences in early postmedication pain reduction in participants presenting with acute musculoskeletal injuries (MSI) to the ED receiving intramuscular (IM) versus per oral (PO) diclofenac. METHODS: This was a prospective, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial conducted between January and June 2018 at the ED of Hamad General Hospital in Doha, Qatar. Adults (18-65 years of age) presenting to the ED within 24 hours of an acute MSI, who had a triage pain score measured using numerical rating scale of at least five or above were enrolled in this trial. Participants randomised to either IM (75 mg) with oral placebo, or oral (100 mg) diclofenac group with IM placebo using a computer-generated randomised concealed list in blocks of six and eight. The primary objective was to compare the proportion of IM versus PO participants attaining a 50% reduction in pain score at 30 min from t0. RESULTS: 300 participants were enrolled (150 in the IM diclofenac group and 150 in the PO diclofenac group) in the trial. The primary outcome was achieved in 99.3 (95% CI 96.3 to 100) in the IM group and 86.7 (95% CI 80.2 to 91.7) in PO group. There was an absolute risk difference of 12.7%. This corresponds to a number needed to treat of 8 cases (95% CI 6 to 14) receiving IM rather than the PO diclofenac in order to achieve one additional case of 50% pain reduction within 30 min of drug administration. There were no adverse events experienced in any treatment groups. CONCLUSION: IM diclofenac injection provides rapid analgesia over PO administration of diclofenac. However, given the preparation needed for an IM injection, oral administration may be preferable when and if clinical circumstances allow a choice in non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug administration route.

A randomised clinical trial of awake prone positioning in COVID-19 suspects with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

Background: Awake prone position (APP) has been reported to improve oxygenation in patients with COVID-19 disease and to reduce the requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation for patients requiring support with high flow nasal cannula. There is conflicting data for patients requiring lower-level oxygen support. Research question: Does APP reduce escalation of oxygen support in COVID-19 patients requiring supplementary oxygen?The primary outcome was defined as an escalation of oxygen support from simple supplementary oxygen (NP, HM, NRB) to NIV (CPAP or BiPAP), HFNC or IMV; OR from NIV (CPAP or BiPAP) or HFNC to IMV by day30. Study design: Two center, prospective, non-blind, randomised controlled trial. Patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 pneumonia requiring ≥ 5 liters/min oxygen to maintain saturations ≥ 94 % were randomised to either APP or control group. The APP group received a 3-h APP session three times per day for three days. Results: Between 9 May and July 13, 2021, 89 adults were screened and 61 enrolled, 31 to awake prone position and 30 controls. There was no difference in the primary outcome, 7 (22.6 %) patients randomised to APP and 9 (30.0 %) controls required escalation of oxygen support (OR 0.68 (0.22-2.14), P = 0.51). There were no differences in any secondary outcomes, in APP did not improve oxygenation. Interpretation: In COVID-19 patients, the use of APP did not prevent escalation of oxygen support from supplementary to invasive or non-invasive ventilation or improve patient respiratory physiology. Trial registration: NCT04853979 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin for virologic cure of non-severe Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine (HC) ± azithromycin (AZ) is widely used for Covid-19. The Qatar Prospective RCT of Expediting Coronavirus Tapering (Q-PROTECT) aimed to assess virologic cure rates of HC±AZ in cases of low-acuity Covid-19. METHODS: Q-PROTECT employed a prospective, placebo-controlled design with blinded randomization to three parallel arms: placebo, oral HC (600 mg daily for one week), or oral HC plus oral AZ (500 mg day one, 250 mg daily on days two through five). At enrollment, non-hospitalized participants had mild or no symptoms and were within a day of Covid-19 positivity by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). After six days, intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of the primary endpoint of virologic cure was assessed using binomial exact 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and χ2 testing. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04349592, trial status closed to new participants.). FINDINGS: The study enrolled 456 participants (152 in each of three groups: HC+AZ, HC, placebo) between 13 April and 1 August 2020. HC+AZ, HC, and placebo groups had 6 (3·9%), 7 (4·6%), and 9 (5·9%) participants go off study medications before completing the medication course (p = 0·716). Day six PCR results were available for all 152 HC+AZ participants, 149/152 (98·0%) HC participants, and 147/152 (96·7%) placebo participants. Day six ITT analysis found no difference (p = 0·821) in groups' proportions achieving virologic cure: HC+AZ 16/152 (10·5%), HC 19/149 (12·8%), placebo 18/147 (12·2%). Day 14 assessment also showed no association (p = 0·072) between study group and viral cure: HC+AZ 30/149 (20·1%,), HC 42/146 (28·8%), placebo 45/143 (31·5%). There were no serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: HC±AZ does not facilitate virologic cure in patients with mild or asymptomatic Covid-19. FUNDING: The study was supported by internal institutional funds of the Hamad Medical Corporation (government health service of the State of Qatar).

A comparative, epidemiological study of acute renal colic presentations to emergency departments in Doha, Qatar, and Melbourne, Australia.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the epidemiology, clinical presentations, management, and outcomes of renal colic presentations in two major academic centers from geographically diverse populations: Qatar (a country in the Afro-Asian stone belt) and South-Eastern Australia (not within a stone belt). METHODS: We undertook a retrospective cohort study of patients with renal colic who presented to the Hamad General Hospital Emergency Department (HGH-ED), Qatar, and The Alfred ED, Melbourne, Australia, during a period of 1 year from August 1, 2012, to July 31, 2013. Cases were identified using ICD-9-CM codes, and an electronic template was used to record the data on predefined clinical variables. RESULTS: A total of 12,223 from the HGH-ED and 384 from The Alfred ED were identified as renal colic presentations during the study period. The rate of renal colic presentations at the HGH-ED was 27.9 per 1000 ED visits compared to 6.7 per 1000 ED visits at The Alfred ED. Patients presenting to the HGH-ED were significantly younger [34.9 years (29.0-43.4) than The Alfred ED [48 years (37-60); P < 0.001]. The median stone size was larger in the HGH-ED group [6 (4-8) mm] versus The Alfred ED group [4 (3-6) mm, P < 0.001]. The intervention rate in the stone-positive population was significantly higher in the HGH-ED group as opposed to The Alfred ED group (38.7 versus 11.9%, P < 0.001). At the time of discharge, The Alfred ED group received fewer analgesic prescriptions (55.8 versus 83.5%, P < 0.001) and more tamsulosin prescriptions (25.3 versus 11.7%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Renal colic presentations to the HGH-ED, Qatar, were younger, with larger stone size mostly located in the lower ureter, compared to The Alfred ED, Melbourne, Australia. The findings suggest that the benefits of treatment including medical expulsion therapy will vary between the two populations. Differences in epidemiology and patient mix should be considered while tailoring strategies for effective management of patients with renal colic in a given setting.