Hemostasis Testing in the Emergency Department: A Narrative Review.

Routine laboratory screening is typically performed at initial evaluation of the vast majority of presentations to the emergency department (ED). These laboratory results are crucial to the diagnostic process, as they may influence up to 70% of clinical decisions. However, despite the usefulness of biological assessments, many tests performed are inappropriate or of doubtful clinical relevance. This overutilization rate of laboratory testing in hospitals, which represents a significant medical-economic burden, ranges from 20 to 67%, with coagulation tests at the top of the list. While reviews frequently focus on nonintensive care units, there are few published assessments of emergency-specific interventions or guidelines/guidance to date. The aim of this review is to highlight current recommendations for hemostasis evaluation in the emergency setting with a specific analysis of common situations leading to ED admissions, such as suspected venous thrombosis or severe bleeding. We revisit the evidence related to the assessment of patient's hemostatic capacity based on comprehensive history taking and physical examination as well as best practice recommendations for blood sample collection to ensure the reliability of results. This review also includes an examination of various currently available point of care tests and a comprehensive discussion on indications, limitations, and interpretation of these tests.

Influence of post-COVID-19 deconfinement on psychiatric visits to the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: During the deconfinement period after the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the number and characteristics of psychiatric visits changed in our emergency department (ED). We aimed to assess changes in the number of visits and characterize the profiles of these patients. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, we examined the number of psychiatric ED visits and their proportion among the total number of ED visits. We also evaluated psychiatric visits characteristics during a one-month period after the declaration of deconfinement, and we compared those characteristics to characteristics observed during the same month over the previous 4 years. RESULTS: The number of psychiatric visits to our emergency department during deconfinement was similar to the number observed in the same month of previous years. However, the proportion of psychiatric visits to our emergency department among all visits to the ED rose during deconfinement to a level never before observed. The mean proportion of psychiatric admissions to all ED admissions rose from 3.5% in past years to 5.3% during deconfinement (p = 0.013). Moreover, during deconfinement, more visits (80%) were without an acute intoxication compared to past years (58.5%; p = 0.031). Also, in the deconfinement period, more visits lacked a follow-up consultation organized at discharge (40%) compared to the historical period (25%, p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: The deconfinement period after the first wave COVID-19 changed the number and type of psychiatric emergency medicine consultations at our hospital, suggesting a psychiatric impact of confinement during this pandemic. These findings will be of interest to practitioners and politicians in the coming months.

Do Non-COVID-19 Patients' Behaviour Towards Emergency Changed During the COVID-19 Outbreak? A Severity-Based Approach.

Objective: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) declined. The main goal of this study was to compare and describe the non-COVID-19 patient's disease severity presentation during the pandemic with its pre-pandemic severity. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study. We selected two samples of visits: one during the first COVID-19 wave of 2020 (pandemic period, PP) and the other during the same months of 2019 (control period, CP). The primary endpoints were the comparison of severity and distribution of the Emergency Severity Index (ESI). Secondary endpoints were comparisons of specific patient characteristics (age, sex, length of the symptoms before the visits, spontaneous visits or not, return home or not). Results: The mean ESI of the visits during the PP (3.19) was statistically significantly lower (P = 0.001) than it was in the CP (3.43). These changes were more pronounced during the months of March (3.03 versus 3.33, P = 0.037) and April (2.96 versus 3.48, P < 0.001). The change in ESI was mainly due to an increase in the proportion of visits by patients with an ESI score of 3 (42% versus 28%, P < 0.001). There were no differences in the characteristics of patients except a decline in patients whose symptoms had a duration of more than 30 days (2% during PP versus 4% during CP, P = 0.03). Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic caused a change in the pattern of non-COVID-19 visits, with proportionally more severe presentations based on the ESI. To our knowledge, this is the first description of changes in behaviour in ED visits by specifically non-COVID-19 patients.

Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome in the pregnant patient: clinical case and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use is on the rise. Several cases of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, secondary to chronic cannabis intoxication, have been described worldwide, but few cases have described this entity in pregnant women. CASE PRESENTATION: We describe a 29-year-old pregnant patient that had consumed cannabis and experienced uncontrolled vomiting. The use of hot baths, the rapid improvement in symptoms, and results of complementary examinations suggested a diagnosis of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome. The patient could return home, and she continued her pregnancy and childbirth without peculiarities. CONCLUSION: Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome should be considered in the differential diagnosis of vomiting in pregnancy. Consumption of cannabis must be systematically included in the anamnesis. However, it seems to be somewhat unacceptable socially or medically. Consumption must be stopped to manage symptoms.

Overlooked guide wire: a multicomplicated Swiss Cheese Model example. Analysis of a case and review of the literature.

Objectives: Central venous catheter (CVC) implementation is now usual in emergency department. The most common complications are misplacement, bleeding, pleural perforation, thrombosis and sepsis. Forgetting a guide wire in the patient's body after catheterization is an underestimated complication of this procedure; only 76 cases are described. Even if the majority of patients remained asymptomatic, severe complications can happened even years later. This article's aim is to identify the sequence of elements that led to the event occurrence and to suggest recommendations of good practice to minimize complications related to central catheter placement.Method: After reviewing all the complications related to central venous catheterization and their frequencies, we analyse from a case report and a review of the literature the sequence of elements that led to the medical error. We use an Ishikawa diagram to show our results and the links between them.Results: Our Ishikawa diagram shows that material, human resources, procedural and radiological involvement factors are the main elements on which we can act to reduce the complications rate after central venous catheterization. We advocate for the establishment of standardized procedures before, during and after the technical gesture.Conclusions: Because of human nature, errors will always be possible when taking care of a patient. However, we propose good practice recommendations to avoid the repetition of a forgetting guide wire after central venous catheterization.