Hot off the press: SGEM#383: Tommy can you hear me-Deaf and hard-of-hearing patients in the ED.

Patients who are deaf and hard of hearing may have difficulty accessing healthcare resources when compared with non-deaf or hard of hearing patients. Little research has been performed investigating in what ways these difficulties manifest. This article summarizes the podcast and blog discussing the manuscript by James et al. in which deaf and hard of hearing patients are compared to non-deaf and hard of hearing patients when it comes to acuity, length of stay, and emergency department revisits. Social media commentary is included.

Hot off the press: SGEM#343: Weight bias in medicine.

Various forms of bias exist in medicine, including race, gender, age, socioeconomic status, and weight bias. Weight bias has not received as much attention in the literature as other forms of bias. More often when discussing weight bias, the discussion is with regard to physician to patient bias, or patient to physician. In this article, we summarize the study performed by McLean et al. as well as the podcast and discussion, and social media commentary, in which the investigators evaluate the presence of physician to physician weight bias.

Use of a modified Delphi process to develop research priorities in major trauma.

PURPOSE: The burden of major trauma within the UK is ever increasing. There is a need to establish research priorities within the field. Delphi methodology can be used to develop consensus opinion amongst a group of stakeholders. This can be used to prioritise clinically relevant, patient-centred research questions to guide future funding allocations. The aim of our study was to identify key future research priorities pertaining to the management of major trauma in the UK. METHODS: A three-phased modified Delphi process was undertaken. Phase 1 involved the submission of research questions by members of the trauma community using an online survey (Phase 1). Phases 2 and 3 involved two consecutive rounds of prioritisation after questions were subdivided into 6 subcategories: Brain Injury, Rehabilitation, Trauma in Older People, Pre-hospital, Interventional, and Miscellaneous (Phases 2 and 3). Cut-off points were agreed by consensus amongst the steering subcommittees. This established a final prioritised list of research questions. RESULTS: In phase 1, 201 questions were submitted by 65 stakeholders. After analysis and with consensus achieved, 186 questions were taken forward for prioritisation in phase 2 with 114 included in phase 3. 56 prioritised major trauma research questions across the 6 categories were identified with a clear focus on long-term patient outcomes. Research priorities across the patient pathway from roadside to rehabilitation were deemed of importance. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus within the major trauma community has identified 56 key research questions across 6 categories. Dissemination of these questions to funding bodies to allow for the development of high-quality research is now required. There is a clear indication for targeted multi-centre multi-disciplinary research in major trauma.

Electrical Stimulation to Enhance Wound Healing.

Electrical stimulation (ES) can serve as a therapeutic modality accelerating the healing of wounds, particularly chronic wounds which have impaired healing due to complications from underlying pathology. This review explores how ES affects the cellular mechanisms of wound healing, and its effectiveness in treating acute and chronic wounds. Literature searches with no publication date restrictions were conducted using the Cochrane Library, Medline, Web of Science, Google Scholar and PubMed databases, and 30 full-text articles met the inclusion criteria. In vitro and in vivo experiments investigating the effect of ES on the general mechanisms of healing demonstrated increased epithelialization, fibroblast migration, and vascularity around wounds. Six in vitro studies demonstrated bactericidal effects upon exposure to alternating and pulsed current. Twelve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigated the effect of pulsed current on chronic wound healing. All reviewed RCTs demonstrated a larger reduction in wound size and increased healing rate when compared to control groups. In conclusion, ES therapy can contribute to improved chronic wound healing and potentially reduce the financial burden associated with wound management. However, the variations in the wound characteristics, patient demographics, and ES parameters used across studies present opportunities for systematic RCT studies in the future.

Prognostic accuracy of emergency department triage tools for adults with suspected COVID-19: the PRIEST observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The WHO and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommend various triage tools to assist decision-making for patients with suspected COVID-19. We aimed to compare the accuracy of triage tools for predicting severe illness in adults presenting to the ED with suspected COVID-19. METHODS: We undertook a mixed prospective and retrospective observational cohort study in 70 EDs across the UK. We collected data from people attending with suspected COVID-19 and used presenting data to determine the results of assessment with the WHO algorithm, National Early Warning Score version 2 (NEWS2), CURB-65, CRB-65, Pandemic Modified Early Warning Score (PMEWS) and the swine flu adult hospital pathway (SFAHP). We used 30-day outcome data (death or receipt of respiratory, cardiovascular or renal support) to determine prognostic accuracy for adverse outcome. RESULTS: We analysed data from 20 891 adults, of whom 4611 (22.1%) died or received organ support (primary outcome), with 2058 (9.9%) receiving organ support and 2553 (12.2%) dying without organ support (secondary outcomes). C-statistics for the primary outcome were: CURB-65 0.75; CRB-65 0.70; PMEWS 0.77; NEWS2 (score) 0.77; NEWS2 (rule) 0.69; SFAHP (6-point rule) 0.70; SFAHP (7-point rule) 0.68; WHO algorithm 0.61. All triage tools showed worse prediction for receipt of organ support and better prediction for death without organ support. At the recommended threshold, PMEWS and the WHO criteria showed good sensitivity (0.97 and 0.95, respectively) at the expense of specificity (0.30 and 0.27, respectively). The NEWS2 score showed similar sensitivity (0.96) and specificity (0.28) when a lower threshold than recommended was used. CONCLUSION: CURB-65, PMEWS and the NEWS2 score provide good but not excellent prediction for adverse outcome in suspected COVID-19, and predicted death without organ support better than receipt of organ support. PMEWS, the WHO criteria and NEWS2 (using a lower threshold than usually recommended) provide good sensitivity at the expense of specificity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN56149622.

The revised Approved Instructional Resources score: An improved quality evaluation tool for online educational resources.

BACKGROUND: Free Open-Access Medical education (FOAM) use among residents continues to rise. However, it often lacks quality assurance processes and residents receive little guidance on quality assessment. The Academic Life in Emergency Medicine Approved Instructional Resources tool (AAT) was created for FOAM appraisal by and for expert educators and has demonstrated validity in this context. It has yet to be evaluated in other populations. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the AAT's usability in a diverse population of practicing emergency medicine (EM) physicians, residents, and medical students; solicited feedback; and developed a revised tool. METHODS: As part of the Medical Education Translational Resources: Impact and Quality (METRIQ) study, we recruited medical students, EM residents, and EM attendings to evaluate five FOAM posts with the AAT and provide quantitative and qualitative feedback via an online survey. Two independent analysts performed a qualitative thematic analysis with discrepancies resolved through discussion and negotiated consensus. This analysis informed development of an initial revised AAT, which was then further refined after pilot testing among the author group. The final tool was reassessed for reliability. RESULTS: Of 330 recruited international participants, 309 completed all ratings. The Best Evidence in Emergency Medicine (BEEM) score was the component most frequently reported as difficult to use. Several themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: for ease of use-understandable, logically structured, concise, and aligned with educational value. Limitations include deviation from questionnaire best practices, validity concerns, and challenges assessing evidence-based medicine. Themes supporting its use include evaluative utility and usability. The author group pilot tested the initial revised AAT, revealing a total score average measure intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of moderate reliability (ICC = 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0 to 0.962). The final AAT's average measure ICC was 0.88 (95% CI = 0.77 to 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: We developed the final revised AAT from usability feedback. The new score has significantly increased usability, but will need to be reassessed for reliability in a broad population.