Use of Topical Anesthetics in the Management of Patients With Simple Corneal Abrasions: Consensus Guidelines From the American College of Emergency Physicians.

The management of corneal abrasions has largely excluded dispensing topical local anesthetics for home use due to concern for corneal toxicity. We have reviewed and critically appraised the available literature evidence regarding the use of topical anesthetics in patients with simple corneal abrasions. Using sequential Delphi review, we have developed these clinical guidelines. Herein are evidentiary summaries and consensus recommendations for 8 specific relevant questions. Our key observation is that for only simple corneal abrasions, as diagnosed and treated in accordance with the full protocol described herein, it appears safe to prescribe or otherwise provide a commercial topical anesthetic (ie, proparacaine, tetracaine, oxybuprocaine) for use up to every 30 minutes as needed during the first 24 hours after presentation, as long as no more than 1.5 to 2 mL total (an expected 24-hour supply) is dispensed and any remainder is discarded after 24 hours. Importantly, although published findings suggest absent harm for short courses, more rigorous studies with a greater cumulative sample size and ophthalmologic follow-up are needed.

A Methodological Appraisal of the HEART Score and Its Variants.

We performed a methodological appraisal of the history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, and troponin (HEART) score and its variants in the context of Annals of Emergency Medicine's methodological standards for clinical decision rules. We note that this chest pain risk stratification tool was not formally derived, omits sex and other known predictors, has weak interrater reliability, and its 0, 1, and 2 score weightings do not align with their known predictivities. Its summary performance (pooled sensitivities of 96% to 97% with lower confidence interval bounds of 93% to 94%) is below that which emergency physicians state a willingness to accept, below the 98% sensitivity exhibited by baseline practice without the score, and below the 1% to 2% acceptable miss threshold specified by the American College of Emergency Physicians chest pain policy. Two variants (HEART Pathway, HEART-2) have the same inherent structural limitations and demonstrate slightly better but still suboptimal sensitivity. Although a simple prediction tool for chest pain outcomes is appealing, we believe that the widespread use of the HEART score and its variants should be reconsidered.

Regulatory Challenges to Emergency Medicine Procedural Sedation.

As currently written, national regulatory guidance on procedural sedation has elements that are contradictory, confusing, and out of date. As a result, hospital procedural sedation policies are often widely inconsistent between institutions despite similar settings and resources, putting emergency department (ED) patients at risk by denying them uniform access to safe, effective, and appropriate procedural sedation care. Many hospitals have chosen to take overly conservative stances with respect to regulatory compliance to minimize their perceived risk. Herein, we review and critique standards and policies from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, The Joint Commission, state nursing boards, the Food and Drug Administration, and others with respect to their effect on ED procedural sedation. Where appropriate, we recommend modifications of and enhancements to their guidance that would improve the access of ED patients to modern, safe, and effective procedural sedation care.

Is the Mallampati Score Useful for Emergency Department Airway Management or Procedural Sedation?

We review the literature in regard to the accuracy, reliability, and feasibility of the Mallampati score as might be pertinent and applicable to emergency department (ED) airway management and procedural sedation. This 4-level pictorial tool was devised to predict difficult preoperative laryngoscopy and intubation, but is now also widely recommended as a routine screening element before procedural sedation. The literature evidence demonstrates that the Mallampati score is inadequately sensitive for the identification of difficult laryngoscopy, difficult intubation, and difficult bag-valve-mask ventilation, with likelihood ratios indicating a small and clinically insignificant effect on outcome prediction. Although it is important to anticipate that patients may have a difficult airway, there is no specific evidence that the Mallampati score augments or improves the baseline clinical judgment of a standard airway evaluation. It generates numerous false-positive warnings for each correct prediction of a difficult airway. The Mallampati score is not reliably assessed because independent observers commonly grade it differently. It cannot be evaluated in many young children and in patients who cannot cooperate because of their underlying medical condition. The Mallampati score lacks the accuracy, reliability, and feasibility required to supplement a standard airway evaluation before ED airway management or procedural sedation.

Unscheduled Procedural Sedation: A Multidisciplinary Consensus Practice Guideline.

The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) organized a multidisciplinary effort to create a clinical practice guideline specific to unscheduled, time-sensitive procedural sedation, which differs in important ways from scheduled, elective procedural sedation. The purpose of this guideline is to serve as a resource for practitioners who perform unscheduled procedural sedation regardless of location or patient age. This document outlines the underlying background and rationale, and issues relating to staffing, practice, and quality improvement.

A Two-Center Validation of "Patient Does Not Follow Commands" and Three Other Simplified Measures to Replace the Glasgow Coma Scale for Field Trauma Triage.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Out-of-hospital personnel worldwide calculate the 13-point Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score as a routine part of field trauma triage. We wish to independently validate a simpler binary assessment to replace the GCS for this task. METHODS: We analyzed trauma center registries from Loma Linda University Health (2003 to 2015) and Denver Health Medical Center (2009 to 2015) to compare the binary assessment "patient does not follow commands" (ie, GCS motor score <6) with GCS score less than or equal to 13 for the prediction of 5 trauma outcomes: emergency intubation, clinically significant brain injury, need for neurosurgical intervention, Injury Severity Score greater than 15, and mortality. As a secondary analysis, we similarly evaluated 3 other measures simpler than the GCS: GCS motor score less than 5, Simplified Motor Score, and the "alert, voice, pain, unresponsive" scale. RESULTS: In this analysis of 47,973 trauma patients, we found that the binary assessment "patient does not follow commands" was essentially identical to GCS score less than or equal to 13 for the prediction of all 5 trauma outcomes, with slightly superior positive likelihood ratios (eg, those for mortality 2.37 versus 2.13) offsetting slightly inferior negative ones (eg, those for mortality 0.25 versus 0.24) and its graphic depiction of sensitivity versus specificity superimposing the GCS prediction curve. We found similar results for the 3 other simplified measures. CONCLUSION: In this 2-center external validation, we confirmed that a simple binary assessment-"patient does not follow commands"-could effectively replace the more complicated GCS for field trauma triage.

Current concepts in management of pain in children in the emergency department.

Pain is common in children presenting to emergency departments with episodic illnesses, acute injuries, and exacerbation of chronic disorders. We review recognition and assessment of pain in infants and children and discuss the manifestations of pain in children with chronic illness, recurrent pain syndromes, and cognitive impairment, including the difficulties of pain management in these patients. Non-pharmacological interventions, as adjuncts to pharmacological management for acute anxiety and pain, are described by age and development. We discuss the pharmacological management of acute pain and anxiety, reviewing invasive and non-invasive routes of administration, pharmacology, and adverse effects.

Does emergency physician empathy reduce thoughts of litigation? A randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesised the addition of brief empathetic statements to physician-patient interaction might decrease thoughts regarding litigation. METHODS: We enrolled a convenience sample of adults in our emergency department (ED) waiting room into a randomised, double-blind controlled trial. Subjects watched videos of simulated discharge conversations between physicians and patient actors; half of the videos differed only by the inclusion of two brief empathetic statements: verbalisations that (1) the physician recognises that the patient is concerned about their symptoms and (2) the patient knows their typical state of health better than a physician seeing them for the first time and did the right thing by seeking evaluation. After watching the video subjects were asked to score a five-point Likert scale their thoughts regarding suing this physician in the event of a missed outcome leading to lost work (primary outcome), and four measures of satisfaction with the physician encounter (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: We enrolled and randomised 437 subjects. 213 in the empathy group and 208 in the non-empathy group completed the trial. Sixteen subjects did not complete the trial due to computer malfunction or incomplete data sheets. Empathy group subjects reported statistically significant less thoughts of litigation than the non-empathy group (mean Likert scale 2.66 vs 2.95, difference -0.29, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.54, p=0.0176). All four secondary measures of satisfaction with the physician encounter were better in the empathy group. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the addition of brief empathetic statements to ED discharge scenarios was associated with a statistically significant reduction in thoughts regarding litigation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01837706.

The toxicity of crude 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM): review of experimental data and results of predictive models for its constituents and a putative metabolite.

Crude 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM) is an industrial solvent used to clean coal. Approximately 10 000 gallons of a liquid mixture containing crude MCHM were accidently released into the Elk River in West Virginia in January 2014. Because of the proximity to a water treatment facility, the contaminated water was distributed to approximately 300 000 residents. In this review, experimental data and computational predictions for the toxicity for crude MCHM, distilled MCHM, its other components and its putative metabolites are presented. Crude MCHM, its other constituents and its metabolites have low to moderate acute and subchronic oral toxicity. Crude MCHM has been shown not to be a skin sensitizer below certain doses, indicating that at plausible human exposures it does not cause an allergic response. Crude MCHM and its constituents cause slight to moderate skin and eye irritation in rodents at high concentrations. These chemicals are not mutagenic and are not predicted to be carcinogenic. Several of the constituents were predicted through modeling to be possible developmental toxicants; however, 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol, 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid and dimethyl 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylate did not demonstrate developmental toxicity in rat studies. Following the spill, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended a short-term health advisory level of 1 ppm for drinking water that it determined was unlikely to be associated with adverse health effects. Crude MCHM has an odor threshold lower than 10 ppb, indicating that it could be detected at concentrations at least 100-fold less than this risk criterion. Collectively, the findings and predictions indicate that crude MCHM poses no apparent toxicological risk to humans at 1 ppm in household water.

Methodologic standards for interpreting clinical decision rules in emergency medicine: 2014 update.

Clinical decision rules are increasingly prominent in medicine, particularly in emergency care. The quality, use, and impact of current published decision rules widely vary, requiring clinicians to be critical consumers. We present an approach to assist in the appraisal of clinical decision rules and in judging when to use such rules.

Congruence of disposition after emergency department intubation in the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) includes a large nationally representative sample of emergency department (ED) visits that is widely used for research. This study investigates the frequency of apparent NHAMCS disposition discrepancies for visits with intubation. METHODS: Using 10 years' worth of NHAMCS data composed of 348,367 ED visits, those recorded as including intubation were evaluated for congruence of disposition, which was expected to be either death or admission to a critical care unit. RESULTS: Of the 875 ED patients recorded as having intubation performed, 27% had incompatible dispositions: 81 (9%) were recorded as discharged and 153 (17%) as admitted to a non-critical care unit. Cross-reference with free text chief complaint descriptions and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnoses codes indicated errors in recording both intubation and admission. CONCLUSION: One fourth of NHAMCS ED visits with intubation have an ED disposition incompatible with this procedure.