Head Injury Evaluation and Ambulance Diagnosis (HOME) Study protocol: a feasibility study assessing the implementation of the Canadian CT Head Rule in the prehospital setting.

INTRODUCTION: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a common presentation in the prehospital environment. At present, paramedics do not routinely use tools to identify low-risk patients who could be left at scene or taken to a local hospital rather than a major trauma centre. The Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR) was developed to guide the use of CT imaging in hospital. It has not been evaluated in the prehospital setting. We aim to address this gap by evaluating the feasibility and acceptability of implementing the CCHR to patients and paramedics, and the feasibility of conducting a full-scale clinical trial of its use. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will recruit adult patients who are being transported to an emergency department (ED) by ambulance after suffering a mild TBI. Paramedics will prospectively collect data for the CCHR. All patients will be transported to the ED, where deferred consent will be taken and the treating clinician will reassess the CCHR, blinded to paramedic interpretation. The primary clinical outcome will be neurosurgically significant TBI. Feasibility outcomes include recruitment and attrition rates. We will assess acceptability of the CCHR to paramedics using the Ottawa Acceptability of Decision Rules Instrument. Interobserver reliability of the CCHR will be assessed between paramedics and the treating clinician in the ED. Participating paramedics and patients will be invited to participate in semistructured interviews to explore the acceptability of trial processes and facilitators and barriers to the use of the CCHR in practice. Data will be analysed thematically. We anticipate recruiting approximately 100 patients over 6 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Health Research Authority and the Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 22/NW/0358). The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at conferences and will be incorporated into a doctoral thesis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN92566288.

Interobserver reliability and diagnostic accuracy of prehospital triage for identifying traumatic brain injury in paediatric patients: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The consistency and accuracy of paediatric TBI triage tools can be affected by different factors, such as patients' characteristics and the level of knowledge and skill of the caregiver. This systematic review included all the available data on the level of agreement between paramedics and ED physicians about the reliability of tools to identify paediatric TBI and the diagnostic accuracy of several such tools in prehospital settings when used by paramedics. METHODS: MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), Cochrane Library (OVID), and CINAHL Plus (EBSCO) databases were searched from inception to 27 October 2022. Quality, bias, and applicability were assessed using COSMIN for interobserver reliability studies and QUADAS-2 tool for diagnostic accuracy studies. Narrative synthesis was employed because data were unsuitable for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Initial searches identified 660 papers in total. Five met the inclusion criteria. Two studies showed moderate agreement between paramedics and ED physicians for GCS assessment. The PTS overtriage rate was 10% and the undertriage rate was 62%, while the triage tape had an overtriage rate of 18% and an undertriage rate of 68%. Pre-hospital GCS had 86.67% sensitivity and 71.43% specificity [95% CI]: 0.74-0.96 for neurosurgically significant TBI. CONCLUSION: Low level of GCS agreement and poor diagnostic accuracy may cause further harm to the patient; thus, further studies are recommended to improve the prehospital management of children with head injuries.

Refreshing the emergency medicine research priorities.

BACKGROUND: The priorities for UK emergency medicine research were defined in 2017 by a priority setting partnership coordinated by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance (JLA). Much has changed in the last 5 years, not least a global infectious disease pandemic and a significant worsening of the crisis in the urgent and emergency care system. Our aim was to review and refresh the emergency medicine research priorities. METHODS: A steering group including patients, carers and healthcare professionals was established to agree to the methodology of the refresh. An independent adviser from the JLA chaired the steering group. The scope was adult patients in the ED. New questions were invited via an open call using multiple communications methods ensuring that patients, carers and healthcare professionals had the opportunity to contribute. Questions underwent minisystematic (BestBETs) review to determine if the question had been answered, and the original 2017 priorities were reviewed. Any questions that remained unanswered were included in an interim prioritisation survey, which was distributed to patients, carers and healthcare professionals. Rankings from this survey were reviewed by the steering group and a shortlist of questions put forward to the final workshop, which was held to discuss and rank the research questions in order of priority. RESULTS: 77 new questions were submitted, of which 58 underwent mini-systematic review. After this process, 49 questions (of which 32 were new, 11 were related to original priorities and 6 unanswered original priorities were carried forward) were reviewed by the steering group and included in an interim prioritisation survey. The interim prioritisation survey attracted 276 individual responses. 26 questions were shortlisted for discussion at the final prioritisation workshop, where the top 10 research priorities were agreed. CONCLUSION: We have redefined the priorities for emergency medicine research in the UK using robust and established methodology, which will inform the agenda for the coming years.

EFSUMB Clinical Practice Guidelines for Point-of-Care Ultrasound: Part One (Common Heart and Pulmonary Applications) SHORT VERSION.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence and produce a summary and recommendations for the most common heart and lung point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS). METHODS: We reviewed 10 clinical domains/questions related to common heart and lung applications of PoCUS. Following review of the evidence, a summary and recommendations were produced, including assigning levels of evidence (LoE) and grading of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE). 38 international experts, the expert review group (ERG), were invited to review the evidence presented for each question. A level of agreement of over 75 % was required to progress to the next section. The ERG then reviewed and indicated their level of agreement of the summary and recommendation for each question (using a 5-point Likert scale), which was approved in the case of a level of agreement of greater than 75 %. A level of agreement was defined as a summary of "strongly agree" and "agree" on the Likert scale responses. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: One question achieved a strong consensus for an assigned LoE of 3 and a weak GRADE recommendation (question 1), the remaining 9 questions achieved broad agreement with an assigned LoE of 4 and a weak GRADE recommendation (question 2), three achieved an LoE of 3 with a weak GRADE recommendation (questions 3-5), three achieved an LoE of 3 with a strong GRADE recommendation (questions 6-8) and the remaining two were assigned an LoE of 2 with a strong GRADE recommendation (questions 9 and 10). CONCLUSION: These consensus-derived recommendations should aid clinical practice and highlight areas of further research for PoCUS in acute settings.

EFSUMB Clinical Practice Guidelines for Point-of-Care Ultrasound: Part One (Common Heart and Pulmonary Applications) LONG VERSION.

AIMS: To evaluate the evidence and produce a summary and recommendations for the most common heart and lung applications of point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS). METHODS: We reviewed 10 clinical domains/questions related to common heart and lung applications of PoCUS. Following review of the evidence, a summary and recommendation were produced, including assignment of levels of evidence (LoE) and grading of the recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE). 38 international experts, the expert review group (ERG), were invited to review the evidence presented for each question. A level of agreement of over 75 % was required to progress to the next section. The ERG then reviewed and indicated their level of agreement regarding the summary and recommendation for each question (using a 5-point Likert scale), which was approved if a level of agreement of greater than 75 % was reached. A level of agreement was defined as a summary of "strongly agree" and "agree" on the Likert scale responses. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: One question achieved a strong consensus for an assigned LoE of 3 and a weak GRADE recommendation (question 1). The remaining 9 questions achieved broad agreement with one assigned an LoE of 4 and weak GRADE recommendation (question 2), three achieving an LoE of 3 with a weak GRADE recommendation (questions 3-5), three achieved an LoE of 3 with a strong GRADE recommendation (questions 6-8), and the remaining two were assigned an LoE of 2 with a strong GRADE recommendation (questions 9 and 10). CONCLUSION: These consensus-derived recommendations should aid clinical practice and highlight areas of further research for PoCUS in acute settings.

Assessing on-line medical education resources: A primer for acute care medical professionals and others.

The internet is increasingly used to propagate medical education, debate, and even disinformation. Therefore, this primer aims to help acute care medical professionals, as well as the public. This is because we all need to be able to critically appraise digital products, appraise content producers, and reflect upon our own on-line presence. This article discusses the challenges and opportunities associated with online medical resources. We then review Free Open Access Medical Education (FOAMed) and the key tools used to assess the trustworthiness of on-line medical products. Specifically, after discussing the pros and cons of traditional academic quality metrics, we compare and contrast the Social Media Index, the ALiEM AIR score, the Revised METRIQ Score, and gestalt. We also discuss internet search engines, peer review, and the important message behind the seemingly tongue-in-cheek Kardashian Index. Hopefully, this primer bolsters basic digital literacy and helps trainees, practitioners, and the public locate useful and reliable on-line resources. Importantly, we highlight the continued importance of traditional academic medicine and primary source publications.

Towards enhanced telephone triage for chest pain: a Delphi study to define life-threatening conditions that must be identified.

BACKGROUND: Improving telephone triage for patients with chest pain has been identified as a national research priority. However, there is a lack of strong evidence to define the life-threatening conditions (LTCs) that telephone triage ought to identify. Therefore, we aimed to build consensus for the LTCs associated with chest pain that ought to be identified during telephone triage for emergency calls. METHODS: We conducted a Delphi study in three rounds. Twenty experts in pre-hospital care and emergency medicine experience from the UK were invited to participate. In round I, experts were asked to list all LTCs that would require priority 1, 2, and 4 ambulance responses. Round II was a ranking evaluation, and round III was a consensus round. Consensus level was predefined at > = 70%. RESULTS: A total of 15 participants responded to round one and 10 to rounds two and three. Of 185 conditions initially identified by the experts, 26 reached consensus in the final round. Ten conditions met consensus for requiring priority 1 response: oesophageal perforation/rupture; ST elevation myocardial infarction; non-ST elevation myocardial infarction with clinical compromise (defined, also by consensus, as oxygen saturation < 90%, heart rate < 40/min or systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg); acute heart failure; cardiac tamponade; life-threatening asthma; cardiac arrest; tension pneumothorax and massive pulmonary embolism. An additional six conditions met consensus for priority 2 response, and three for priority 4 response. CONCLUSION: Using expert consensus, we have defined the LTCs that may present with chest pain, which ought to receive a high-priority ambulance response. This list of conditions can now form a composite primary outcome for future studies to derive and validate clinical prediction models that will optimise telephone triage for patients with a primary complaint of chest pain.

Healthcare system impacts of the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing: evidence from a national trauma registry patient case series and hospital performance data.

INTRODUCTION: In response to detonation of an improvised explosive device at the Manchester Arena on 22 May 2017, we aimed to use detailed information about injured patients flowing through hospital healthcare to objectively evaluate the preplanned responses of a regional trauma care system and to show how routinely collected hospital performance data can be used to assess impact on regional healthcare. METHODS: Data about injury severity, management and outcome for patients presenting to hospitals were collated using England's major trauma registry for 30 days following hospital attendance. System-wide data about hospital performance were collated by National Health Service England's North West Utilisation Management Unit and presented as Shewhart charts from 15 April 2017 to 25 June 2017. RESULTS: Detailed information was obtained on 153 patients (109 adults and 44 children) who attended hospital emergency departments after the incident. Within 6 hours, a network of 11 regional trauma care hospitals received a total of 138 patients (90%). For the whole patient cohort, median Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 1 (IQR 1-10) and median New ISS (NISS) was 2 (IQR 1-14). For the 75 patients (49%) attending a major trauma centre, median ISS was 7.5 (IQR 1-14) and NISS was 10 (IQR 3-22). Limb and torso body regions predominated when injuries were classified as major life threatening (Abbreviated Injury Scale>3). Ninety-three patients (61%) required hospital admission following emergency department management, with 21 (14%) requiring emergency damage control surgery and 24 (16%) requiring critical care. Three fatalities occurred during early resuscitative treatment and 150 (98%) survived to day 30. The increased system-wide hospital admissions and care activity was linked to increases in regional hospital care capacity through cancellations of elective surgery and increased community care. Consequently, there were sustained system-wide hospital service improvements over the following weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic collation of injured patient and healthcare system data has provided an objective evaluation of a regional major incident plan and provided insight into healthcare system resilience. Hospital patient care data indicated that a prerehearsed patient dispersal plan at incident scene was implemented effectively.

Systematic literature search, review and dissemination methodology for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Purpose of the study: SARS-CoV-2 has caused healthcare systems globally to reorganise. A pandemic paradox emerged; while clinicians were desperate for information on a new disease, they had less time to find and evaluate the vast volume of publications at times of significant strain on healthcare systems.A multidisciplinary team undertook a weekly literature search capturing all COVID-19 publications. We also monitored free open access medical education (FOAMed) sources for emerging themes. Title and abstract screening pooled the most relevant papers for emergency medicine. Three summary types were created, a 'Top 5 Flash Update', a journal club and a rapid response to emerging FOAMed themes. From these summaries, three modes of dissemination were used: short written summaries, blogs and podcasts. These were amplified through social media. Study design: A retrospective review was conducted assessing the impact of this knowledge dissemination strategy for the period of March to September 2020. Results: In total, 64 687 papers were identified and screened. Of the papers included in the 'Top 5', 28.3% were on epidemiology, 23.6% treatment, 16.7% diagnostics, 12% prognosis, 8.7% pathophysiology with the remaining 10.7% consisting of PPE, public health, well-being and 'other'. We published 37 blogs, 17 podcasts and 18 Top 5 Flash Updates. The blogs were read 138 343 times, the Top 5 Flash Updates 68 610 times and the podcasts had 72 501 listens. Conclusion: A combination of traditional academic and novel social media approaches can address the pandemic paradox clinicians are facing.

Combatting COVID-19: is ultrasound an important piece in the diagnostic puzzle?

The current COVID-19 pandemic is causing diagnostic and risk stratification difficulties in Emergency Departments (ED) worldwide. Molecular tests are not sufficiently sensitive, and results are usually not available in time for decision making in the ED. Chest x-ray (CXR) is a poor diagnostic test for COVID-19, and computed tomography (CT), while sensitive, is impractical as a diagnostic test for all patients. Lung ultrasound (LUS) has an established role in the evaluation of acute respiratory failure and has been used during the COVID-19 outbreak as a decision support tool. LUS shows characteristic changes in viral pneumonitis, and while these changes are not specific for COVID-19, it may be a useful adjunct during the diagnostic process. It is quick to perform and repeat and may be done at the bedside. The authors believe that LUS can help to mitigate uncertainty in undifferentiated patients with respiratory symptoms. This review aims to provide guidance regarding indications for LUS, describe the typical sonographic abnormalities seen in patients with COVID-19 and provide recommendations around the logistics of performing LUS on patients with COVID-19 and managing the infection control risk of the procedure. The risk of anchoring bias during a pandemic and the need to consider alternative pathologies are emphasised throughout this review. LUS may be a useful point-of-care test for emergency care providers during the current COVID-19 pandemic if used within a strict framework that governs education, quality assurance and proctored scanning protocols.

Evidence-based medicine and COVID-19: what to believe and when to change.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a surge of information being presented to clinicians regarding this novel and deadly disease. There is a clear urgency to collate, review, appraise and act on this information if we are to do the best for clinicians and patients. However, the speed of the pandemic is a threat to traditional models of knowledge translation and practice change. In this concepts paper, we argue that clinicians need to be agile in their thinking and practice in order to find the right time to change. Adoption of new methods should be based on clinical judgement, the weight of evidence and the balance of probabilities that any new technique, test or treatment might work. The pandemic requires all of us to reach a new level of evidence-based medicine characterised by scepticism, thoughtfulness, responsiveness and clinically agility in practice.

Enhanced triage for patients with suspected cardiac chest pain: the History and Electrocardiogram-only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes decision aid.

OBJECTIVES: Several decision aids can 'rule in' and 'rule out' acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in the Emergency Department (ED) but all require measurement of blood biomarkers. A decision aid that does not require biomarker measurement could enhance risk stratification at triage and could be used in the prehospital environment. We aimed to derive and validate the History and ECG-only Manchester ACS (HE-MACS) decision aid using only the history, physical examination and ECG. METHODS: We undertook secondary analyses in three prospective diagnostic accuracy studies that included patients presenting to the ED with suspected cardiac chest pain. Clinicians recorded clinical features at the time of arrival using a bespoke form. Patients underwent serial troponin sampling and 30-day follow-up for the primary outcome of ACS. The model was derived by logistic regression in one cohort and validated in two similar prospective studies. RESULTS: The HE-MACS model was derived in 796 patients and validated in cohorts of 474 and 659 patients. HE-MACS incorporated age, sex, systolic blood pressure plus five historical variables to stratify patients into four risk groups. On validation, 5.5 and 12.1% (pooled total 9.4%) patients were identified as 'very low risk' (potential immediate rule out) with a pooled sensitivity of 99.5% (95% confidence interval: 97.1-100.0%). CONCLUSION: Using only the patient's history and ECG, HE-MACS could 'rule out' ACS in 9.4% of patients while effectively risk stratifying remaining patients. This is a very promising tool for triage in both the prehospital environment and ED. Its impact should be prospectively evaluated in those settings.

Zero point survey: a multidisciplinary idea to STEP UP resuscitation effectiveness.

The primary survey assessment is a cornerstone of resuscitation processes. The name itself implies that it is the first step in resuscitation. In this article, we argue that in an organized resuscitation the primary survey must be preceded by a series of steps to optimize safety and performance and set the stage for the execution of expert team behavior. Even in the most time critical situations, an effective team will optimize the environment, perform self-assessments of personal readiness and participate in a preemptive team brief. We call these processes the 'zero point survey' as it precedes the primary survey. This paper explains the rationale for the zero point survey and describes a structured approach designed to be suitable for all resuscitation situations.