Medical student deployment to a single metropolitan hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed methods analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To explore student and staff satisfaction with the use of medical students as a surge workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: We conducted a mixed methods analysis of staff and student experiences with the medical student workforce at a single metropolitan ED over an 8-month period between December 2021 and July 2022, using an online survey tool. Students were invited to complete the survey fortnightly, whereas senior medical and nursing staff were invited weekly. RESULTS: There was a 32% response rate for surveys sent to medical student assistants (MSAs) and 18% and 15% for medical and nursing staff, respectively. Most students felt well prepared and supported in the role and would recommend it to other students. They reported that the role allowed them to gain experience and confidence within the ED, especially after much of their learning had moved online throughout the pandemic. Senior nurses and doctors found MSAs to be useful members of the team, largely through their assistance with task completion. Both staff and students recommended a more comprehensive orientation, changes to the supervision model and increased clarity in the students' scope of practice. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study provide insight into the use of medical students as an emergency surge workforce. Responses from medical students and staff suggested that the project was beneficial for both groups as well as for overall departmental performance. These findings are likely to be translatable beyond the COVID-19 pandemic setting.

Feasibility of a rapid diagnosis discussion tool for reducing misdiagnosis of patients presenting to emergency departments with abdominal pain.

OBJECTIVES: Providing accurate and timely diagnoses is challenging in ED settings. We evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of a short, structured rapid diagnosis discussion (RaDD) between a patient's initial doctor and a second doctor for patients presenting to ED with abdominal pain. METHODS: Controlled pre-post, mixed-methods pilot study in a metropolitan hospital network in Melbourne, Australia. Comparisons were made between an ED using RaDD for a 1-month period (n = 155) and two control EDs within the same hospital network (n = 2227) using standard practices. A short survey of 27 clinicians was also undertaken. RESULTS: Provisional diagnoses changed in 24.7% (95% confidence interval 19.0, 30.4) of all cases for which a RaDD case report sheet was completed, and clinicians' confidence in their decision-making was significantly higher when using RaDD (r = 0.27). RaDD significantly increased the likelihood that patients would be sent to the short stay unit and have a blood test ordered, and significantly reduced the likelihood that patients would be discharged home from the ED or leave at their own risk. Usage of the RaDD tool was low (25.2% of eligible cases), and qualitative feedback indicated that time limitations inhibited uptake. CONCLUSIONS: RaDD encouraged clinicians to take a more cautious, risk-averse approach to care and improved confidence in their diagnostic decisions. However, cost effectiveness of these outcomes and possible implementation barriers need to be further considered in subsequent studies.

Outcome of emergency department patients with delayed admission to an intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: To compare 30 day mortality, length of stay and cost for adult emergency department patients with a delay in intensive care unit admission of up to 24 h with a group of patients admitted directly from the emergency department to the intensive care unit. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study in a 300-bed university affiliated teaching hospital. One hundred and twenty-two adult emergency department patients admitted to the intensive care unit either directly from the emergency department (direct group) or within 24 h of ward admission (delayed group) were identified. The main outcome measures investigated were 30 day mortality, length of stay and cost. RESULTS: Thirty day mortality in the delayed group was significantly higher, the risk ratio being 2.46 (95% confidence interval 1.2-5.2). The length of stay and cost were similar in the direct and delayed groups. Baseline estimate of risk of death derived from the mortality probability model calculated from the emergency department data was similar for the two groups (P =0.10). Emergency department triage categorization and emergency department staff seniority was significantly different (chi2 for trends, P = 0.002 and 0.023, respectively), with patients in the delayed group more likely to be triaged as less urgent and to be initially assessed by junior staff. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that patients transferred to the intensive care unit within 24 h of ward admission from the emergency department had a significant increase in 30 day mortality compared with patients admitted to the intensive care unit directly from the emergency department, but no difference was found in terms of length of stay and cost.