Predictors of False-Negative Focused Assessment With Sonography for Trauma Examination in Pediatric Blunt Abdominal Trauma.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated associations between patient and injury characteristics and false-negative (FN) focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) in pediatric blunt abdominal trauma (BAT). We also evaluated the effects of FN FAST on in-hospital mortality and length of stay (LOS) variables. METHODS: This retrospective cohort studied children younger than 18 years between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2013, with BAT, documented FAST, and pathologic fluid on computed tomography, surgery, or autopsy. Multivariable and bivariate analyses were used to assess associations between FN FAST and patient injury characteristics, mortality, and hospital LOS. RESULTS: A total of 141 pediatric BAT patients with pathologic free fluid were included. There were no patient or injury characteristics, which conferred increased odds of an FN FAST. Splenic and bladder injury were negatively associated with FN FAST odds ratio of 0.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2-0.8) and 0.1 (95% CI, 0-0.8). Abbreviated Injury Scale score of 4 or greater to the abdomen and extremity was negatively associated with FN FAST odds ratio of 0.1 (95% CI, 0-0.3) and 0.3 (95% CI, 0.1-0.9). There was no association between FN FAST and mortality. Patients with an FN FAST had increased hospital LOS after controlling for sex, age, and Injury Severity Score. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians need to be cautious applying a single initial FAST to patients with minor abdominal trauma or with suspected injuries to organs other than the spleen or bladder. Formalized studies to develop risk stratification tools could allow clinicians to integrate FAST into the pediatric patient population in the safest manner possible.

Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society: A Commitment to Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Service in the Profession of Medicine.

With a motto of "Be Worthy to Serve the Suffering," Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society (AΩA) supports the importance, inclusion, and development of a culturally and ethnically diverse medical profession with equitable access for all. The underrepresentation of minorities in medical schools and medicine continues to be a challenge for the medical profession, medical education, and AΩA. AΩA has worked, and continues to work, to ensure the development of diverse leaders, fostering within them the objectivity and equity to be inclusive servant leaders who understand and embrace diversity in all its forms.Inclusion of talented individuals from different backgrounds benefits patient care, population health, education, and scientific discovery. AΩA values an inclusive, diverse, fair, and equitable work and learning environment for all and supports the medical profession in its work to achieve a welcoming, inclusive environment in teaching, learning, caring for patients, and collaboration.The diversity of medical schools is changing and will continue to change. AΩA is committed to continuing to work with its members, medical school deans, and AΩA chapters to assure that AΩA elections are unbiased and based on the values of AΩA and the profession of medicine in service to patients and the profession.Progress toward diversity, inclusion, and equity is more than simply checking off a box or responding to criticism-it is about being and developing diverse excellent physicians. AΩA and all those in the medical profession must continue to guide medicine to be unbiased, open, accepting, inclusive, and culturally aware in order to "Be Worthy to Serve the Suffering."

Design and implementation of a controlled clinical trial to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of routine opt-out rapid human immunodeficiency virus screening in the emergency department.

In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released revised recommendations for performing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing in health care settings, including implementing routine rapid HIV screening, the use of an integrated opt-out consent, and limited prevention counseling. Emergency departments (EDs) have been a primary focus of these efforts. These revised CDC recommendations were primarily based on feasibility studies and have not been evaluated through the application of rigorous research methods. This article describes the design and implementation of a large prospective controlled clinical trial to evaluate the CDC's recommendations in an ED setting. From April 15, 2007, through April 15, 2009, a prospective quasi-experimental equivalent time-samples clinical trial was performed to compare the clinical effectiveness and efficiency of routine (nontargeted) opt-out rapid HIV screening (intervention) to physician-directed diagnostic rapid HIV testing (control) in a high-volume urban ED. In addition, three nested observational studies were performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and patient and staff acceptance of the two rapid HIV testing methods. This article describes the rationale, methodologies, and study design features of this program evaluation clinical trial. It also provides details regarding the integration of the principal clinical trial and its nested observational studies. Such ED-based trials are rare, but serve to provide valid comparisons between testing approaches. Investigators should consider similar methodology when performing future ED-based health services research.

Patient acceptance of rapid HIV testing practices in an urban emergency department: assessment of the 2006 CDC recommendations for HIV screening in health care settings.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently released revised recommendations for HIV testing in health care settings, calling for the performance of nontargeted opt-out HIV screening, the integration of informed consent for HIV testing into the general consent for medical care, and the uncoupling of prevention counseling and testing. It is unclear, however, whether patients will understand opt-out screening or be satisfied with integration of the consent for HIV testing into the general medical consent or the uncoupling of counseling from testing. The objective of this study is to evaluate patients' acceptance of the CDC's revised recommendations in an urban emergency department (ED). METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey study performed in the ED of an urban, public safety net hospital. The approximate annual ED census is 55,000 patients, and an approximate undiagnosed HIV seroprevalence ranges from 0.7% to 2.2%. A standardized survey instrument was developed and piloted and was then implemented with trained research assistants. Adult patients who were awake, alert, and agreed to participate in the study were included. RESULTS: During the 3-month study period, 529 patients were enrolled. The median age was 38 years (interquartile range 27 to 49 years; range 18 to 87 years), 57% were men, 48% were white, 28% were Hispanic, 18% were black, and 6% represented another race or ethnicity. When patients were asked whether they would have been tested had opt-out methodology been used, 81% (95% confidence interval [CI] 77% to 84%) would have agreed to be tested. When asked whether they would have been tested had opt-in methodology been used, there was no difference (absolute difference 0%; 95% CI -5% to 4%). However, explanation of opt-out screening was required for 11% (95% CI 8% to 14%), whereas explanation of opt-in screening was required for only 2% (95% CI 1% to 4%) (absolute difference 9%; 95% CI 5% to 11%). When asked whether the patient's physician recommended an HIV test during the ED visit, 93% (95% CI 91% to 95%) would have agreed to be tested. When asked whether consent for HIV testing should be separate from consent for general emergency medical care, 50% (95% CI 46% to 54%) agreed. When asked whether counseling was necessary before performing an HIV test, 34% (95% CI 30% to 38%) agreed, and when asked whether counseling was necessary after receiving a negative HIV test result, 35% (95% CI 31% to 40%) agreed. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of ED patients appear willing to be screened for HIV infection in accordance with the CDC's revised recommendations for HIV testing in health care settings. Similar proportions were willing to be tested when opt-out or opt-in screening strategies were used; however, a significantly greater proportion required explanation of opt-out screening.