Interobserver reliability and diagnostic accuracy of prehospital triage for identifying traumatic brain injury in paediatric patients: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The consistency and accuracy of paediatric TBI triage tools can be affected by different factors, such as patients' characteristics and the level of knowledge and skill of the caregiver. This systematic review included all the available data on the level of agreement between paramedics and ED physicians about the reliability of tools to identify paediatric TBI and the diagnostic accuracy of several such tools in prehospital settings when used by paramedics. METHODS: MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), Cochrane Library (OVID), and CINAHL Plus (EBSCO) databases were searched from inception to 27 October 2022. Quality, bias, and applicability were assessed using COSMIN for interobserver reliability studies and QUADAS-2 tool for diagnostic accuracy studies. Narrative synthesis was employed because data were unsuitable for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Initial searches identified 660 papers in total. Five met the inclusion criteria. Two studies showed moderate agreement between paramedics and ED physicians for GCS assessment. The PTS overtriage rate was 10% and the undertriage rate was 62%, while the triage tape had an overtriage rate of 18% and an undertriage rate of 68%. Pre-hospital GCS had 86.67% sensitivity and 71.43% specificity [95% CI]: 0.74-0.96 for neurosurgically significant TBI. CONCLUSION: Low level of GCS agreement and poor diagnostic accuracy may cause further harm to the patient; thus, further studies are recommended to improve the prehospital management of children with head injuries.

EFSUMB Clinical Practice Guidelines for Point-of-Care Ultrasound: Part One (Common Heart and Pulmonary Applications) SHORT VERSION.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence and produce a summary and recommendations for the most common heart and lung point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS). METHODS: We reviewed 10 clinical domains/questions related to common heart and lung applications of PoCUS. Following review of the evidence, a summary and recommendations were produced, including assigning levels of evidence (LoE) and grading of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE). 38 international experts, the expert review group (ERG), were invited to review the evidence presented for each question. A level of agreement of over 75 % was required to progress to the next section. The ERG then reviewed and indicated their level of agreement of the summary and recommendation for each question (using a 5-point Likert scale), which was approved in the case of a level of agreement of greater than 75 %. A level of agreement was defined as a summary of "strongly agree" and "agree" on the Likert scale responses. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: One question achieved a strong consensus for an assigned LoE of 3 and a weak GRADE recommendation (question 1), the remaining 9 questions achieved broad agreement with an assigned LoE of 4 and a weak GRADE recommendation (question 2), three achieved an LoE of 3 with a weak GRADE recommendation (questions 3-5), three achieved an LoE of 3 with a strong GRADE recommendation (questions 6-8) and the remaining two were assigned an LoE of 2 with a strong GRADE recommendation (questions 9 and 10). CONCLUSION: These consensus-derived recommendations should aid clinical practice and highlight areas of further research for PoCUS in acute settings.

EFSUMB Clinical Practice Guidelines for Point-of-Care Ultrasound: Part One (Common Heart and Pulmonary Applications) LONG VERSION.

AIMS: To evaluate the evidence and produce a summary and recommendations for the most common heart and lung applications of point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS). METHODS: We reviewed 10 clinical domains/questions related to common heart and lung applications of PoCUS. Following review of the evidence, a summary and recommendation were produced, including assignment of levels of evidence (LoE) and grading of the recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE). 38 international experts, the expert review group (ERG), were invited to review the evidence presented for each question. A level of agreement of over 75 % was required to progress to the next section. The ERG then reviewed and indicated their level of agreement regarding the summary and recommendation for each question (using a 5-point Likert scale), which was approved if a level of agreement of greater than 75 % was reached. A level of agreement was defined as a summary of "strongly agree" and "agree" on the Likert scale responses. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: One question achieved a strong consensus for an assigned LoE of 3 and a weak GRADE recommendation (question 1). The remaining 9 questions achieved broad agreement with one assigned an LoE of 4 and weak GRADE recommendation (question 2), three achieving an LoE of 3 with a weak GRADE recommendation (questions 3-5), three achieved an LoE of 3 with a strong GRADE recommendation (questions 6-8), and the remaining two were assigned an LoE of 2 with a strong GRADE recommendation (questions 9 and 10). CONCLUSION: These consensus-derived recommendations should aid clinical practice and highlight areas of further research for PoCUS in acute settings.

Refreshing the emergency medicine research priorities.

BACKGROUND: The priorities for UK emergency medicine research were defined in 2017 by a priority setting partnership coordinated by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance (JLA). Much has changed in the last 5 years, not least a global infectious disease pandemic and a significant worsening of the crisis in the urgent and emergency care system. Our aim was to review and refresh the emergency medicine research priorities. METHODS: A steering group including patients, carers and healthcare professionals was established to agree to the methodology of the refresh. An independent adviser from the JLA chaired the steering group. The scope was adult patients in the ED. New questions were invited via an open call using multiple communications methods ensuring that patients, carers and healthcare professionals had the opportunity to contribute. Questions underwent minisystematic (BestBETs) review to determine if the question had been answered, and the original 2017 priorities were reviewed. Any questions that remained unanswered were included in an interim prioritisation survey, which was distributed to patients, carers and healthcare professionals. Rankings from this survey were reviewed by the steering group and a shortlist of questions put forward to the final workshop, which was held to discuss and rank the research questions in order of priority. RESULTS: 77 new questions were submitted, of which 58 underwent mini-systematic review. After this process, 49 questions (of which 32 were new, 11 were related to original priorities and 6 unanswered original priorities were carried forward) were reviewed by the steering group and included in an interim prioritisation survey. The interim prioritisation survey attracted 276 individual responses. 26 questions were shortlisted for discussion at the final prioritisation workshop, where the top 10 research priorities were agreed. CONCLUSION: We have redefined the priorities for emergency medicine research in the UK using robust and established methodology, which will inform the agenda for the coming years.

Healthcare system impacts of the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing: evidence from a national trauma registry patient case series and hospital performance data.

INTRODUCTION: In response to detonation of an improvised explosive device at the Manchester Arena on 22 May 2017, we aimed to use detailed information about injured patients flowing through hospital healthcare to objectively evaluate the preplanned responses of a regional trauma care system and to show how routinely collected hospital performance data can be used to assess impact on regional healthcare. METHODS: Data about injury severity, management and outcome for patients presenting to hospitals were collated using England's major trauma registry for 30 days following hospital attendance. System-wide data about hospital performance were collated by National Health Service England's North West Utilisation Management Unit and presented as Shewhart charts from 15 April 2017 to 25 June 2017. RESULTS: Detailed information was obtained on 153 patients (109 adults and 44 children) who attended hospital emergency departments after the incident. Within 6 hours, a network of 11 regional trauma care hospitals received a total of 138 patients (90%). For the whole patient cohort, median Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 1 (IQR 1-10) and median New ISS (NISS) was 2 (IQR 1-14). For the 75 patients (49%) attending a major trauma centre, median ISS was 7.5 (IQR 1-14) and NISS was 10 (IQR 3-22). Limb and torso body regions predominated when injuries were classified as major life threatening (Abbreviated Injury Scale>3). Ninety-three patients (61%) required hospital admission following emergency department management, with 21 (14%) requiring emergency damage control surgery and 24 (16%) requiring critical care. Three fatalities occurred during early resuscitative treatment and 150 (98%) survived to day 30. The increased system-wide hospital admissions and care activity was linked to increases in regional hospital care capacity through cancellations of elective surgery and increased community care. Consequently, there were sustained system-wide hospital service improvements over the following weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic collation of injured patient and healthcare system data has provided an objective evaluation of a regional major incident plan and provided insight into healthcare system resilience. Hospital patient care data indicated that a prerehearsed patient dispersal plan at incident scene was implemented effectively.

Towards enhanced telephone triage for chest pain: a Delphi study to define life-threatening conditions that must be identified.

BACKGROUND: Improving telephone triage for patients with chest pain has been identified as a national research priority. However, there is a lack of strong evidence to define the life-threatening conditions (LTCs) that telephone triage ought to identify. Therefore, we aimed to build consensus for the LTCs associated with chest pain that ought to be identified during telephone triage for emergency calls. METHODS: We conducted a Delphi study in three rounds. Twenty experts in pre-hospital care and emergency medicine experience from the UK were invited to participate. In round I, experts were asked to list all LTCs that would require priority 1, 2, and 4 ambulance responses. Round II was a ranking evaluation, and round III was a consensus round. Consensus level was predefined at > = 70%. RESULTS: A total of 15 participants responded to round one and 10 to rounds two and three. Of 185 conditions initially identified by the experts, 26 reached consensus in the final round. Ten conditions met consensus for requiring priority 1 response: oesophageal perforation/rupture; ST elevation myocardial infarction; non-ST elevation myocardial infarction with clinical compromise (defined, also by consensus, as oxygen saturation < 90%, heart rate < 40/min or systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg); acute heart failure; cardiac tamponade; life-threatening asthma; cardiac arrest; tension pneumothorax and massive pulmonary embolism. An additional six conditions met consensus for priority 2 response, and three for priority 4 response. CONCLUSION: Using expert consensus, we have defined the LTCs that may present with chest pain, which ought to receive a high-priority ambulance response. This list of conditions can now form a composite primary outcome for future studies to derive and validate clinical prediction models that will optimise telephone triage for patients with a primary complaint of chest pain.

Combatting COVID-19: is ultrasound an important piece in the diagnostic puzzle?

The current COVID-19 pandemic is causing diagnostic and risk stratification difficulties in Emergency Departments (ED) worldwide. Molecular tests are not sufficiently sensitive, and results are usually not available in time for decision making in the ED. Chest x-ray (CXR) is a poor diagnostic test for COVID-19, and computed tomography (CT), while sensitive, is impractical as a diagnostic test for all patients. Lung ultrasound (LUS) has an established role in the evaluation of acute respiratory failure and has been used during the COVID-19 outbreak as a decision support tool. LUS shows characteristic changes in viral pneumonitis, and while these changes are not specific for COVID-19, it may be a useful adjunct during the diagnostic process. It is quick to perform and repeat and may be done at the bedside. The authors believe that LUS can help to mitigate uncertainty in undifferentiated patients with respiratory symptoms. This review aims to provide guidance regarding indications for LUS, describe the typical sonographic abnormalities seen in patients with COVID-19 and provide recommendations around the logistics of performing LUS on patients with COVID-19 and managing the infection control risk of the procedure. The risk of anchoring bias during a pandemic and the need to consider alternative pathologies are emphasised throughout this review. LUS may be a useful point-of-care test for emergency care providers during the current COVID-19 pandemic if used within a strict framework that governs education, quality assurance and proctored scanning protocols.

Evidence-based medicine and COVID-19: what to believe and when to change.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a surge of information being presented to clinicians regarding this novel and deadly disease. There is a clear urgency to collate, review, appraise and act on this information if we are to do the best for clinicians and patients. However, the speed of the pandemic is a threat to traditional models of knowledge translation and practice change. In this concepts paper, we argue that clinicians need to be agile in their thinking and practice in order to find the right time to change. Adoption of new methods should be based on clinical judgement, the weight of evidence and the balance of probabilities that any new technique, test or treatment might work. The pandemic requires all of us to reach a new level of evidence-based medicine characterised by scepticism, thoughtfulness, responsiveness and clinically agility in practice.

Validation of the (Troponin-only) Manchester ACS decision aid with a contemporary cardiac troponin I assay.

OBJECTIVES: The Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision aid can 'rules in' and 'rule out' acute coronary syndromes (ACS) by combining a patient's symptoms with the results of a single blood test taken at the time of arrival in the Emergency Department (ED). The original model (MACS) included two biomarkers: high sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and heart-type fatty acid binding protein (h-FABP). A refined model without h-FABP was found to have comparable sensitivity but greater specificity. We sought to validate MACS and T-MACS using the contemporary Siemens Advia Centaur cardiac troponin I assay to increase usability in practice. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis from prospective diagnostic cohort study at Stepping Hill Hospital, United Kingdom. Patients presenting with chest pain of suspected cardiac nature warranting rule out for ACS were included. All patients underwent hs-cTnT testing at least 12h after peak symptoms. The primary outcome was a diagnosis of ACS, defined as either prevalent acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or incident major adverse cardiac events (death, AMI or coronary revascularization) within 30days. RESULTS: Of 405 included patients, 76 (18.8%) had ACS. MACS and T-MACS had similar C-statistics (0.94 for each, p=0.36) and sensitivity (difference 1.3%, 95% CI -1.3 to 3.9%, p=1.00) but T-MACS had significantly greater specificity (difference 16.7%, 95% CI 14.6-18.9%, p<0.0001). T-MACS and MACS would have allowed 36.3% and 22.5% patients to be immediately discharged respectively. Of patients classified as 'very low risk', none had ACS when MACS was used compared to one (0.7%) with T-MACS. CONCLUSION: Both MACS and T-MACS effectively ruled out ACS even with a contemporary troponin I assay and could be used to reduce unnecessary hospital admissions.

Social-media-enabled learning in emergency medicine: a case study of the growth, engagement and impact of a free open access medical education blog.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians are increasingly using social media for professional development and education. In 2012, we developed the St.Emlyn's blog, an open access resource dedicated to providing free education in the field of emergency medicine. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and growth of this international emergency medicine blog. METHOD: We present a narrative description of the development of St.Emlyn's blog. Data on scope, impact and engagement were extracted from WordPress, Twitter and Google Analytics. RESULTS: The St.Emlyn's blog demonstrates a sustained growth in size and user engagement. Since inception in 2012, the site has been viewed over 1.25 million times with a linear year-on-year growth. We have published over 500 blog posts, each of which attracts a mean of 2466 views (range 382-69 671). The site has been viewed in nearly every country in the world, although the majority (>75%) of visitors come from the USA, UK and Australia. SUMMARY: This case study of an emergency medicine blog quantifies the reach and engagement of social-media-enabled learning in emergency medicine.

How can emergency physicians harness the power of new technologies in clinical practice and education?

As the Royal College of Emergency Medicine looks back on 50 years of progress towards the future it is clear that new and emerging technologies have the potential to substantially change the practice of emergency medicine. Education, diagnostics, therapeutics are all likely to change as algorithms, personalised medicine and insights into complexity become more readily available to the emergency clinician. This paper outlines areas of our practice that are already changing and speculates on how we might need to prepare our workforce for a technologically enhanced future.

An Emergency Medicine Research Priority Setting Partnership to establish the top 10 research priorities in emergency medicine.

Defining research priorities in a specialty as broad as emergency medicine is a significant challenge. In order to fund and complete the most important research projects, it is imperative that we identify topics that are important to all clinicians, society and to our patients. We have undertaken a priority setting partnership to establish the most important questions facing emergency medicine. The top 10 questions reached through a consensus process are discussed.

Feasibility of the Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision rule to safely reduce unnecessary hospital admissions: a pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggest that the Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision rule can effectively 'rule out' and 'rule in' acute coronary syndromes (ACS) following a single blood test. In a pilot randomised controlled trial, we aimed to determine whether a large trial is feasible. METHODS: Patients presenting to two EDs with suspected cardiac chest pain were randomised to receive care guided by the MACS decision rule (intervention group) or standard care (controls). The primary efficacy outcome was a successful discharge from the ED, defined as a decision to discharge within 4 hours of arrival providing that the patient did not have a missed acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or develop a major adverse cardiac event (MACE: death, AMI or coronary revascularisation) within 30 days. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment and attrition rates. RESULTS: In total, 138 patients were included between October 2013 and October 2014, of whom 131 (95%) were randomised (66 to intervention and 65 controls). Nine (7%) patients had prevalent AMI and six (5%) had incident MACE within 30 days. All 131 patients completed 30-day follow-up and were included in the final analysis with no missing data for the primary analyses. Compared with standard care, a significantly greater proportion of patients whose care was guided by the MACS rule were successfully discharged within 4 hours (26% vs 8%, adjusted OR 5.45, 95% CI 1.73 to 17.11, p=0.004). No patients in either group who were discharged within 4 hours had a diagnosis of AMI or incident MACE within 30 days (0.0%, 95% CI 0% to 20.0% in the intervention group). CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot trial, use of the MACS rule led to a significant increase in safe discharges from the ED but a larger, fully powered trial remains necessary. Our findings seem to support the feasibility of that trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 86818215. RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEE REFERENCE: 13/NW/0081. UKCRN REGISTRATION ID: 14334.

Troponin-only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (T-MACS) decision aid: single biomarker re-derivation and external validation in three cohorts.

BACKGROUND: The original Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes model (MACS) 'rules in' and 'rules out' acute coronary syndromes (ACS) using high sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and heart-type fatty acid binding protein (H-FABP) measured at admission. The latter is not always available. We aimed to refine and validate MACS as Troponin-only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (T-MACS), cutting down the biomarkers to just hs-cTnT. METHODS: We present secondary analyses from four prospective diagnostic cohort studies including patients presenting to the ED with suspected ACS. Data were collected and hs-cTnT measured on arrival. The primary outcome was ACS, defined as prevalent acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or incident death, AMI or coronary revascularisation within 30 days. T-MACS was built in one cohort (derivation set) and validated in three external cohorts (validation set). RESULTS: At the 'rule out' threshold, in the derivation set (n=703), T-MACS had 99.3% (95% CI 97.3% to 99.9%) negative predictive value (NPV) and 98.7% (95.3%-99.8%) sensitivity for ACS, 'ruling out' 37.7% patients (specificity 47.6%, positive predictive value (PPV) 34.0%). In the validation set (n=1459), T-MACS had 99.3% (98.3%-99.8%) NPV and 98.1% (95.2%-99.5%) sensitivity, 'ruling out' 40.4% (n=590) patients (specificity 47.0%, PPV 23.9%). T-MACS would 'rule in' 10.1% and 4.7% patients in the respective sets, of which 100.0% and 91.3% had ACS. C-statistics for the original and refined rules were similar (T-MACS 0.91 vs MACS 0.90 on validation). CONCLUSIONS: T-MACS could 'rule out' ACS in 40% of patients, while 'ruling in' 5% at highest risk using a single hs-cTnT measurement on arrival. As a clinical decision aid, T-MACS could therefore help to conserve healthcare resources.

A prospective, observational cohort study of patients presenting to an emergency department with acute shoulder trauma: the Manchester emergency shoulder (MESH) project.

BACKGROUND: Fracture and dislocation of the shoulder are usually identifiable through the use of plain radiographs in an emergency department. However, other significant soft tissue injuries can be missed at initial presentation. This study used contrast enhanced magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) to determine the pattern of underlying soft tissue injuries in patients with traumatic shoulder injury, loss of active range of motion, and normal plain radiography. METHODS: A prospective, observational cohort study. Twenty-six patients with acute shoulder trauma and no identifiable radiograph abnormality were screened for inclusion. Those unable to actively abduction their affected arm to 90° at initial presentation and at two week's clinical review were consented for MRA. RESULTS: Twenty patients (Mean age 44 years, 4 females) proceeded to MRA. One patient had no abnormality, three patients showed minimal pathology. Four patients had an isolated bony/labral injury. Eight patients had injuries isolated to the rotator cuff. Four patients had a combination of bony and rotator cuff injury. Four patients were referred to a specialist shoulder surgeon following MRA and underwent surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Significant soft tissue pathology was common in our cohort of patients with acute shoulder trauma, despite the reassurance of normal plain radiography. These patients were unable to actively abduct to 90° both at initial presentation and at two week's post injury review. A more aggressive management and diagnostic strategy may identify those in need of early operative intervention and provide robust rehabilitation programmes.

Top 10 (+1) tips to get started with in situ simulation in emergency and critical care departments.

Simulation is increasingly valued as a teaching and learning tool in emergency medicine. Bringing simulation into the workplace to train in situ offers a unique and effective training opportunity for the emergency department (ED) multiprofessional workforce. Integrating simulation in a busy department is difficult but can be done. In this article, we outline 10 tips to help make it happen.