A randomized study to compare oral potassium binders in the treatment of acute hyperkalemia.

BACKGROUND: The KBindER (K+ Binders in Emergency Room and hospitalized patients) clinical trial is the first head-to-head evaluation of oral potassium binders (cation-exchange resins) for acute hyperkalemia therapy. METHODS: Emergency room and hospitalized patients with a blood potassium level ≥ 5.5 mEq/L are randomized to one of four study groups: potassium binder drug (sodium polystyrene sulfonate, patiromer, or sodium zirconium cyclosilicate) or nonspecific laxative (polyethylene glycol). Exclusion criteria include recent bowel surgery, ileus, diabetic ketoacidosis, or anticipated dialysis treatment within 4 h of treatment drug. Primary endpoints include change in potassium level at 2 and 4 h after treatment drug. Length of hospital stay, next-morning potassium level, gastrointestinal side effects and palatability will also be analyzed. We are aiming for a final cohort of 80 patients with complete data endpoints (20 per group) for comparative statistics including multivariate adjustment for kidney function, diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, metabolic acidosis, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor prescription, and treatment with other agents to lower potassium (insulin, albuterol, loop diuretics). DISCUSSION: The findings from our study will inform decision-making guidelines on the role of oral potassium binders in the treatment of acute hyperkalemia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04585542 . Registered 14 October 2020.

Procalcitonin-Guided Use of Antibiotics for Lower Respiratory Tract Infection.

BACKGROUND: The effect of procalcitonin-guided use of antibiotics on treatment for suspected lower respiratory tract infection is unclear. METHODS: In 14 U.S. hospitals with high adherence to quality measures for the treatment of pneumonia, we provided guidance for clinicians about national clinical practice recommendations for the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections and the interpretation of procalcitonin assays. We then randomly assigned patients who presented to the emergency department with a suspected lower respiratory tract infection and for whom the treating physician was uncertain whether antibiotic therapy was indicated to one of two groups: the procalcitonin group, in which the treating clinicians were provided with real-time initial (and serial, if the patient was hospitalized) procalcitonin assay results and an antibiotic use guideline with graded recommendations based on four tiers of procalcitonin levels, or the usual-care group. We hypothesized that within 30 days after enrollment the total antibiotic-days would be lower - and the percentage of patients with adverse outcomes would not be more than 4.5 percentage points higher - in the procalcitonin group than in the usual-care group. RESULTS: A total of 1656 patients were included in the final analysis cohort (826 randomly assigned to the procalcitonin group and 830 to the usual-care group), of whom 782 (47.2%) were hospitalized and 984 (59.4%) received antibiotics within 30 days. The treating clinician received procalcitonin assay results for 792 of 826 patients (95.9%) in the procalcitonin group (median time from sample collection to assay result, 77 minutes) and for 18 of 830 patients (2.2%) in the usual-care group. In both groups, the procalcitonin-level tier was associated with the decision to prescribe antibiotics in the emergency department. There was no significant difference between the procalcitonin group and the usual-care group in antibiotic-days (mean, 4.2 and 4.3 days, respectively; difference, -0.05 day; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.6 to 0.5; P=0.87) or the proportion of patients with adverse outcomes (11.7% [96 patients] and 13.1% [109 patients]; difference, -1.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.6 to 1.7; P<0.001 for noninferiority) within 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: The provision of procalcitonin assay results, along with instructions on their interpretation, to emergency department and hospital-based clinicians did not result in less use of antibiotics than did usual care among patients with suspected lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences; ProACT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02130986 .).

Underreporting of alcohol use in trauma patients: A retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the inconsistencies between self-reported alcohol consumption and blood alcohol content (BAC) in trauma patients. We aimed to identify the incidence of positive BAC in trauma patients who reported a zero score on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). We also sought to identify characteristics of individuals who were likely to negate alcohol use, yet yielded a positive BAC, to improve our ability to provide alcohol screening and healthcare to these at-risk alcohol consumers. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study from 2010 to 2018 at a university-based, level-one trauma emergency department. We identified 2581 adult trauma patients who reported a zero score on the AUDIT from the trauma registry. We collected BAC, age, gender, race, education level, mechanism of injury, language and injury severity score (ISS) from patient charts, and used descriptive analyses and multivariate logistic regression to analyze the data. Results: One hundred and thirty-one (5.08%) trauma patients who reported AUDIT of zero had a positive BAC. We found that being male (OR 1.53), assaulted or injured from a penetrating mechanism (OR 2.29) and having an ISS greater than 25 (OR 3.76) were independent positive predictors of trauma patients who reported an AUDIT of zero and had a positive BAC. Age (OR 0.99) was an independent negative predictor of trauma patients who reported an AUDIT of zero and had a positive BAC in this cohort. Conclusions: Inaccurate self-reporting of alcohol drinking behavior does exist in trauma patients. A composite of objective alcohol screening modalities, in addition to AUDIT, is needed to screen for alcohol use in this population. Healthcare providers should remain highly suspicious of alcohol-related injuries in individuals with the identified characteristics.

What If I Do Not Match? Scrambling for a Spot and Going Outside the Match.

Matching into emergency medicine (EM) is getting progressively more competitive. Applicants must therefore prepare for the possibility of not matching and, accordingly, be ready to participate in the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP). In this article, we elaborate on the SOAP and the options for applicants who fail to match during Match Week. Alternative courses of action include applying for a preliminary year, matching into a categorical residency program, or aiming to secure EM spots outside the Match through the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors, Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, and American Association of Medical Colleges.

Couples Match in Emergency Medicine.

The Match is a daunting process for everyone, but it can be exceedingly more complicated for couples. Accordingly, the Couples Match was introduced by the National Residency Match Program in 1984 and has been witnessing a steady increase in the number of participating couples over the past 30 years. The highest number of couples participating in the match, and the highest match rate among them, was recorded in 2018. In this article, we provide couples considering the Couples Match, with one or both partners planning to apply to emergency medicine, with insights on this process. Although it may initially appear to be complicated, the Couples Match enables partners to obtain postgraduate training in geographic proximity to one another. With good communication between the partners and their advisors, an exciting joint venture can unfold that is fueled by the strength of the couple.

The International Medical Graduate and Emergency Medicine.

International medical graduates (IMGs) are medical graduates who have received their degree from international medical schools. IMGs must undertake a 3-step process to apply to the National Residency Matching Program match. First, they must obtain a valid standard certificate from the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates. Following certification, they must apply for and secure a position in a residency training program. Third, they must obtain a visa that would enable them to commence their training. In this article, we delve thoroughly into these stepladders to provide IMGs with a clear roadmap of the process as well as contacts to key agencies that may provide more comprehensive assistance.

Uniformed Medical Students and Residents in Emergency Medicine.

"Uniformed medical students and residents" refers to medical school enrollees and physicians in training who are obligated to serve in the military after graduation or training completion. This is in exchange for 2 forms of financial support that are provided by the military for individuals interested in pursuing a career in medicine. These programs are offered namely through the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences (USUHS) and the Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP). Uniformed medical school graduates can choose to serve with the military upon graduation or to pursue residency training. Residency can be completed at in-service programs at military treatment facilities, at out-service programs, at civilian residency training programs, or via deferment programs for residency training at civilian programs. Once their residency training is completed, military physicians should then complete their service obligation. As such, both USUHS and HPSP students should attend a basic officer training to ensure their preparedness for military service. In this article, we elaborate more on the mission, requirements, application, and benefits of both USUHS and HPSP. Moreover, we expand on the officer preparedness training, postgraduate education in the military, unique opportunities of military medicine, and life after completion of military obligation.

Socioeconomic and geographical disparities in prescription and illicit opioid-related overdose deaths in Orange County, California, from 2010-2014.

Background: Reports indicate a geographic effect of socioeconomic inequalities on the occurrence of opioid-related fatal overdoses. This study aims to (1) estimate the rates of opioid-related overdoses, (2) estimate the association of benzodiazepine co-ingestion with opioid-related deaths, (3) estimate associations between socioeconomic indicators and opioid-related deaths, and (4) map the distribution of fatal overdoses, in Orange County (OC), California. Methods: An ecologic study was conducted of all opioid- related deaths (1205 total) from 2010 to 2014 obtained from the OC Coroner Division database (1065 OC residents, 55 nonresidents, 85 OC homeless) (analyzed 2016-2017). Rates of opioid overdose, benzodiazepine co-ingestion prevalence, and associations with socioeconomic status (SES; education, poverty, median income) using ZIP code analysis in the residential and homeless communities were calculated. Results: Of 1205 deaths, 904 involved prescription-type opioids, 223 involved heroin, 39 involved both, and 39 not stated; 973 were classified unintentional overdoses, 180 suicides, and 52 undetermined; 49% of cases involved benzodiazepines. Prescription-type opioid and heroin death rates for residents were 5.4/ 100,000 person-years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.0-5.8) and 1.2/100,000 person-years (95% CI: 1.0-1.4), respectively. Males, age group 45-54, and Caucasian race had the highest rate (13.6/100,000) of opioid mortality. The highest death rates were seen in homeless adults, at 136/100,000 person-years for prescription-type opioids (95% CI: 99.0-185.5) and 156/100,000 person-years for heroin (95% CI: 116.8-209.5). Conclusions: The burden of prescription-type opioid-related deaths in OC affects all demographics and levels of SES; there is a disproportionately high rate of opioid-related deaths in the OC homeless population.

An Introduction to the Residency Application Process.

Emergency medicine (EM) is a swiftly developing yet still relatively young discipline. We are going to present in the Medical Student Forum section of the Journal of Emergency Medicine several article series covering the key topics that medical students interested in emergency medicine will find helpful. This article introduces the topics that will be tackled in the first compilation of articles dealing with the residency application process.

Three- vs. Four-Year Emergency Medicine Training Programs.

Postgraduate training in emergency medicine (EM) varies in length among different programs. This fact creates a dilemma for applicants to the specialty of EM and prevents EM educators from reaching a consensus regarding the optimal length of training. Historically, EM training existed in the postgraduate year (PGY) 1-3, 2-4, and 1-4 formats, until the PGY 2-4 program became obsolete in 2011-2012. Currently, three-quarters of EM programs follow the PGY 1-3 format. In this article, we clarify for the applicants the main differences between the PGY 1-3 and PGY 1-4 formats. We also discuss the institutional, personal, and graduate considerations that explain why an institution or an individual would choose one format over the other.

Program Visits and Residency Interviews.

Interviews and program visits play a major role in the National Resident Matching Program application process. They are a great opportunity for programs to assess applicants and vice versa. Irrespective of all other elements in the application profile, these can make it or break it for an applicant. In this article, we assist applicants in planning their residency interviews and program visits. We elaborate on the keys to success, including planning of the interviews in a proper and timely fashion, searching programs individually, conducting mock interviews, following interview and program visit etiquette, and carefully scheduling and making travel arrangements. We also guide applicants through what to expect and is expected of them during their interview and visit.

Letters of Recommendation.

Letters of recommendation (LORs) are a central element of an applicant's portfolio for the National Resident Matching Program (known as the "Match"). This is especially true when applying to competitive specialties like emergency medicine (EM). LORs convey an applicant's potential for success, and also highlight an applicant's qualities that cannot always be recognized from a curriculum vitae, test scores, or grades. Traditional LORs, also called narrative LORs, are written in prose and are therefore highly subjective. This led to the establishment of a task force by the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors in 1995 to develop a standardized LOR. Revisions of this form are now referred to as a standardized letter of evaluation. These evaluations in this format have proven to increase inter-rater reliability, decrease interpretation time, and standardize the process used by EM faculty to prepare evaluations for EM applicants. In this article, we will discuss LORs; address applicants' concerns, including from whom to request LORs (EM faculty vs. non-EM faculty vs. non-clinical faculty), number of LORs an applicant should include in his or her application materials, the preferred manner of requesting and the timing in which to ask for an LOR, as well as the philosophy behind waiving the right to see the letter.

Are You Applying to More Than One Specialty?

Although the majority of U.S. medical students predominantly apply to only one specialty, some apply to more than one. When it comes to emergency medicine (EM), applicants may apply to additional specialties due to several reasons: being international medical graduates as well as their inability to make a decision regarding the choice of specialty, fear from the growing competitiveness of EM, or the desire to stay in a specific geographic area. Accordingly, in this article we aim to guide medical students through the process of applying to more than one specialty, including using the Electronic Residency Application Service application, writing a personal statement, getting letters of recommendation, and an Early Match. Moreover, we elaborate on the effect of applying to more than one specialty on a student's application to a residency in EM.

Ranking Programs: Medical Student Strategies.

BACKGROUND: Selecting a training program is one of the most challenging choices an applicant to the Match has to make. DISCUSSION: To make an informed decision, applicants should do a comprehensive research and carefully plan their upcoming steps. Factors that might influence the applicants' decision include geography, program reputation, specific areas of academic focus, subspecialty interests, university-versus community-based training, length of training and interest in combined programs. Such information can be gathered from published material, websites, and personal advice (from faculty, residents and advisors). This process is time-consuming and stressful. CONCLUSION: Therefore, in this article we elaborate on the above to facilitate this process for applicants.

Applicants with Prior Training.

Emergency medicine (EM) has its challenges, downsides, advantages, and accompanying lifestyle. Additionally, graduates of EM residency programs have abundant job opportunities. Accordingly, there is an increased interest in residency training in EM, even among residents with prior training. Transitioning from another specialty to EM can be complicated yet achievable, especially if EM is the transitioning physician's passion and career goal. Therefore, in this article, we elaborate on the transition process from another discipline to EM in light of changes in residency funding. We also explore the advantages and disadvantages of transitioning to EM with previous training in another specialty. Moreover, we expand on credit equivalencies for months already completed in another training programs, as well as the difficulties to be anticipated by transitioning physicians.

Combined Residency Programs in Emergency Medicine.

There are currently 5 combined residencies in emergency medicine (EM), namely EM/pediatrics, EM/internal medicine, EM/internal medicine/critical care, EM/family medicine and EM/anesthesiology. These combined programs vary from 5-6 years in length. Like categorical programs, the decision to enter a 5- or 6-year program should be an informed and comprehensive decision. We describe the history and current status of the combined EM programs, discuss the process of applying to a combined EM program, describe the life of combined EM residents, and explore common career opportunities available to combined EM program graduates.

Randomized pilot trial measuring knowledge acquisition of opioid education in emergency department patients using a novel media platform.

BACKGROUND: The number of active opioid analgesic prescriptions has risen steadily, causing increases in nonmedical opioid use, addiction, and overdose. Insufficient focus on patient discharge instructions has contributed to lack of patient awareness regarding dangers of opioids. This study examines whether an educational Khan Academy-style animation discharge instruction on the dangers and safe usage of opioid analgesics elicits higher knowledge acquisition than current standard of care. Additionally, it measures the feasibility of implementing this video discharge instruction in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: Fifty-two English-speaking patients aged 18 years or older receiving an opioid prescription were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomized into 2 groups. The standard of care group received verbal instruction and an informational sheet, whereas the video animation group received a 6-minute video on proper usage of opioids in addition to standard of care. Video content was sourced from samhsa.gov and administered within the ED prior to discharge. Both groups received a 26-question test regarding the dangers and safe usage of opioids immediately after education. An unpaired t test compared knowledge acquisition between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were approached, 52 patients enrolled; 27 in the standard group and 25 in the animation group. The standard of care group averaged 65% knowledge acquisition (16.8/26 correct), whereas the animation group averaged 82% acquisition (21.2/26 correct). The video animation significantly increased patient knowledge acquisition about opioid medications' risks and proper usage and disposal (P = .001). CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that medical knowledge acquisition is improved in the video animation group compared with the current standard of care (P = .001). It can also be concluded that it is feasible to implement a novel media platform to educate patients receiving opioid analgesics in the ED (96.1%).

Assessing medical student documentation using simulated charts in emergency medicine.

BACKGROUND: The 1995 Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) guidelines stated that providers may only use the review of systems and past medical, family, social history in student documentation for billing purposes; therefore, many providers viewed the student documentation as an extraneous step and chose not to allow medical students to document patient visits. This workflow negatively affected medical student education in documentation skills. Although the negative impact on students' documentation skills is obvious, areas of deficits are unknown. Understanding the area of deficits will benefit future curriculums to prepare prospective resident physicians for proper documentation. We aimed to assess areas of deficits in documentation of fourth-year medical students according to HCFA billing guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of fourth-year medical students' simulated chart documentations at a United States medical school from May 2014 to May 2015. We evaluated students' simulated charts from an online learning tool using simulated cases for completeness according to HCFA guidelines and analyzed data using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We found that 98.9% (n = 90) of the charts were downcoded. Of these charts, 33.0% (n = 30) had incomplete history of present illness, 90.1% (n = 82) had incomplete review of systems, 73.6% (n = 67) had incomplete past medical, family, social history and 88.8% (n = 80) had incomplete physical exams. CONCLUSION: New curriculum should include billing guideline information and emphasize the completeness of charts according to acuity.

Computerized alcohol screening identified more at-risk drinkers in a level 2 than a level 1 trauma center.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol abuse is recognized as a significant contributor to injury. It is therefore essential that trauma centers implement screening and brief intervention (SBI) to identify patients who are problem drinkers. Although, the utility of SBI in identifying at-risk drinkers have been widely studied in level 1 trauma centers, few studies have been done in level 2 centers. This study evaluates the usefulness of SBI in identifying at-risk drinkers and to investigate the pattern of alcohol drinking among level 2 trauma patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of a convenience sample of trauma patients participating in computerized alcohol screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (CASI) in an academic level 1 trauma center and a nearby suburban community hospital level 2 trauma center. CASI utilized Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) to screen patients. We compared the pattern of alcohol drinking, demographic factors, and readiness-to-change scores between those screened in a level 2 and 1 trauma center. RESULTS: A total of 3,850 and 1,933 admitted trauma patients were screened in level 1 and 2 trauma centers respectively. There was no difference in mean age, gender, and language between the two centers. Of those screened, 10.2% of the level 1 and 14.4% of the level 2 trauma patients scored at-risk (AUDIT 8-19) (p < 0.005). Overall, 3.7% of the level 1 and 7.2% of the level 2 trauma patients had an AUDIT score consistent with dependency (AUDIT > =20) (p < 0.005). After adjusting for age, sex, education, and language, the odds of being a drinker at the level 2 center was two times of those at the level 1 center (p < 0.005). The odds of being an at-risk or dependent drinker at level 2 trauma center were 1.72 times of those at the level 1 center (p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that SBI is effective in identifying at-risk drinkers in level 2 trauma center. SBI was able to identify all drinkers, including at-risk and dependent drinkers at higher rates in level 2 versus level 1 trauma centers. Further studies to evaluate the effectiveness of SBI in altering drinking patterns among level 2 trauma patients are warranted.

Implementation of a 4-Year Point-of-Care Ultrasound Curriculum in a Liaison Committee on Medical Education-Accredited US Medical School.

OBJECTIVES: The established benefits of point-of-care ultrasound have given rise to multiple new and innovative curriculums to incorporate ultrasound teaching into medical education. This study sought to measure the educational success of a comprehensive and integrated 4-year point-of-care ultrasound curriculum. METHODS: We integrated a curriculum consisting of traditional didactics combined with asynchronous learning modules and hands-on practice on live models with skilled sonographers into all 4 years of education at a Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited US Medical School. Each graduating student was administered an exit examination with 48 questions that corresponded to ultrasound milestones. RESULTS: Ninety-five percent (n = 84) of fourth-year medical students completed the exit examination. The mean score was 79.5% (SD, 10.2%), with mean scores on the ultrasound physics and anatomy subsections being 77.1% (SD, 11.0%) and 85.9% (SD, 21.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive 4-year point-of-care ultrasound curriculum integrated into medical school may successfully equip graduating medical students with a fundamental understanding of ultrasound physics, anatomy, and disease recognition.