Palliative Care Symptom Management in The Emergency Department: The ABC's of Symptom Management for The Emergency Physician.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care is a rapidly evolving area of emergency medicine. With an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 baby boomers per day reaching retirement age, emergency departments (EDs) are treating more patients with chronic and serious disease. Palliative care offers comprehensive care for patients with advanced medical illness, aims to alleviate suffering and improve quality of life, and plays an important role in caring for these patients in the ED. OBJECTIVES: We sought to increase the emergency physician's knowledge of and comfort with symptom control in palliative and hospice patients. DISCUSSION: Having the skills to deliver efficient and appropriate palliative and hospice care is imperative for emergency physicians. Palliative care should be considered in any patient suffering from symptoms of a life-limiting illness, whereas hospice care should be considered in the patient with likely <6 months left to live. Palliative care is appropriate earlier in the course of disease, and is appropriate when the practitioner would not be surprised if the patient died in the next 2 years ("The Surprise Question"). This article discusses management in the ED of pain, nausea, dyspnea, agitation, and oral secretions in patients appropriate for hospice and palliative care. CONCLUSION: The need for palliative and hospice care in the ED is increasing, requiring that emergency physicians be familiar with palliative and hospice care and competent in the delivery of rapid symptom management in patients with severe and life-limiting disease.

Difference in R01 Grant Funding Among Osteopathic and Allopathic Emergency Physicians over the Last Decade.

INTRODUCTION: Receiving an R01 grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is regarded as a major accomplishment for the physician researcher and can be used as a means of scholarly activity for core faculty in emergency medicine (EM). However, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires that a grant must be obtained for it to count towards a core faculty member's scholarly activity, while the American Osteopathic Association states that an application for a grant would qualify for scholarly activity whether it is received or not. The aim of the study was to determine if a medical degree disparity exists between those who successfully receive an EM R01 grant and those who do not, and to determine the publication characteristics of those recipients. METHODS: We queried the NIH RePORTER search engine for those physicians who received an R01 grant in EM. Degree designation was then determined for each grant recipient based on a web-based search involving the recipient's name and the location where the grant was awarded. The grant recipient was then queried through PubMed central for the total number of publications published in the decade prior to receiving the grant. RESULTS: We noted a total of 264 R01 grant recipients during the study period; of those who received the award, 78.03% were allopathic physicians. No osteopathic physician had received an R01 grant in EM over the past 10 years. Of those allopathic physicians who received the grant, 44.17% held a dual degree. Allopathic physicians had an average of 48.05 publications over the 10 years prior to grant receipt and those with a dual degree had 51.62 publications. CONCLUSION: Allopathic physicians comprise the majority of those who have received an R01 grant in EM over the last decade. These physicians typically have numerous prior publications and an advanced degree.

Medicinal systems of complementary and alternative medicine: a cross-sectional survey at a pediatric emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to find out which experiences adults are making while treating children with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies in German-speaking Switzerland. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: A cross-sectional survey was performed on adults accompanying the children presenting to an urban, tertiary pediatric emergency department in Zurich; 71% of the distributed questionnaires (1143 of 1600) could be used for data analysis. The respondents were asked about their experiences while treating the child with CAM and--for comparison reasons--with conventional medicine (CM). RESULTS: The respondents perceived the effectiveness of CAM therapies in general to be inferior to that of CM, although 49% of all respondents stated that CAM therapies were more effective than CM in certain cases/against certain diseases and 13% that CAM therapies were as effective as CM. Higher frequency of use and lower compliance were observed in the case of CAM, relatively to CM. Respondents described the direct costs for the patient of both types of medicine to be comparable. Ninety-three percent (93%) of the respondents experienced no side-effects with CAM therapies, whereas only 52% of the respondents stated the same about CM therapies; the observed side-effects of CAM were weaker than those of CM. Homeopathy was the most frequently used form of CAM (77% of all CAM users), followed by herbal medicine (64%), anthroposophic medicine (24%), Traditional Chinese Medicine (13%), Ayurveda (5%), and others (34%). CONCLUSIONS: From the respondents' point of view, the most marked difference between CAM- and CM therapies concerns the frequency and intensity of side-effects, which were markedly higher in the latter case. The respondents made use of a wide variety of CAM therapies.