Optimal bowel diameter thresholds for diagnosing small bowel obstruction and surgical intervention with point-of-care ultrasound.

OBJECTIVES: A bowel diameter threshold of ≥2.5 cm, originally derived from the research using computed tomography, is frequently used for diagnosing small bowel obstruction (SBO) with point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). We sought to determine the optimal bowel diameter threshold for diagnosing SBO using POCUS and its accuracy in predicting surgical intervention. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis using individual patient-level data from a previous systematic review on POCUS for SBO diagnosis across five academic EDs. Patient data were collected, including imaging results, surgical findings, and final diagnosis. The measured diameter of the small bowel using POCUS was recorded. ROC area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were constructed to determine the optimal threshold for bowel diameter in predicting SBO diagnosis and surgical intervention. Subgroup analyses were performed based on sex and age. RESULTS: A total of 403 patients had individual patient-level data available, with 367 patients included in the final analysis. The most accurate bowel diameter overall for predicting SBO was 2.75 cm (AUC = 0.76, 95% CI 0.71-0.81). A bowel diameter of ≤1.7 cm had 100% sensitivity with no miss rate, while a bowel diameter of ≥4 cm had 90.7% specificity in confirming SBO. Patients under 65 had an optimal threshold of 2.75 cm versus 2.95 cm in patients over 65. Females had an optimal threshold of 2.75 cm, while males had a value of 2.95 cm. There was no significant correlation between bowel diameter thresholds and surgical intervention. CONCLUSION: A bowel diameter threshold of 2.75 cm on POCUS is more discriminative diagnostic accuracy for diagnosing SBO. Patients' age and sex may impact diagnostic accuracy, suggesting that tailored approaches may be needed.

Individualized throughput metric reports for emergency medicine residents: Impact on time to disposition and resident perceptions.

Background: Research suggests that quantitative metric reports can improve the clinical performance of emergency physicians; however, few studies have examined their effects on physicians in training. The primary study objective was to assess the effects of providing emergency medicine (EM) residents with individualized throughput metrics with regard to emergency department (ED) disposition times. Methods: We performed a single-center, retrospective, observational study from January 2021 to December 2022 examining ED disposition times before and after providing upper-level EM residents individualized throughput metrics. Residents received monthly reports of three specific metrics averaged over the preceding 6 months: (1) median time from room to discharge order (Rm2Dc), (2) median time from return of all results to discharge order (Rlts2Dc), and (3) median time from room and to consult order for hospitalization (Rm2Hosp). Overall mean values of the three metrics before and during metric sharing were compared via independent t-test and stratified by level of training and time of year. Adjusted analysis was performed to control for temporal differences between study periods. Testing was conducted at α = 0.05 level of significance. Results: A total of 35 unique residents were included in the analysis. Overall, mean disposition times were not significantly different before and during reporting of metrics: Rm2Dc (154.8 min vs. 148.9 min, p = 0.109), Rslt2Dc (46.5 min vs. 45.1 min, p = 0.522), and Rm2Hosp (141.7 min vs. 135.7 min, p = 0.257). Subgroup analysis yielded similar results, aside from a significant decrease in mean Rm2Hosp in the postgraduate year-3 (PGY-3) group (145.8 min vs. 124.1 min, p = 0.004). Analysis with adjusted means yielded results similar to those observed with unadjusted data. Conclusions: Overall, individualized throughput metrics were not correlated with decreased average times to ED disposition for upper-level EM residents; however, in the subset of hospitalized patients seen by PGY-3 residents, we observed a mean decrease of 21.7 min to consultation.

Accuracy of Prehospital Services' Estimated Time to Arrival for Ground Transport to the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Emergency medical services (EMS) transporting patients to the emergency department (ED) typically call ahead to provide an estimated time to arrival (ETA). Accurate ETA facilitates ED preparation and resource allotment in anticipation of patient arrival. OBJECTIVE: The study purposed to determine the accuracy of ETA provided by EMS ground units. METHODS: We performed a single-center, prospective, observational study of ED patients arriving via EMS ground transport. The primary outcome was the time difference between EMS-reported ETA and actual time of arrival (ATA). The difference between ATA and ETA was compared using the two-sided Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test. Subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate ETA accuracy for specific types of transports and assess variability by month and time of day. RESULTS: We included 1176 patient transports in the final analysis. The overall median difference ATA-ETA was 3 min (interquartile range 1-5 min) with a range of -26-48 minutes (Z = -25.139, p < 0.001). EMS underestimated ETA in 961 cases (81.7%), and 94 ETAs (8.0%) were accurate to within 1 min. The largest difference between ATA and ETA occurred between 07:00-07:59 and 16:00-16:59 (5 min, interquartile range 2-7). CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrate that prehospital providers underestimate time to ED arrival in most ground transports; however, the median difference between estimated and actual time to arrival is small.