Impact of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine mandate on parental likelihood to vaccinate children: Exploring school-related concerns and vaccination decision-making.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the impact of a hypothetical school-entry COVID-19 vaccine mandate on parental likelihood to vaccinate their child. METHODS: We collected demographics, COVID-19-related school concerns, and parental likelihood to vaccinate their child from parents of patients aged 3-16 years seen across nine pediatric Emergency Departments from 06/07/2021 to 08/13/2021. Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared pre- and post-mandate vaccination likelihood. Multivariate linear and logistic regression analyses explored associations between parental concerns with baseline and change in vaccination likelihood, respectively. RESULTS: Vaccination likelihood increased from 43% to 50% with a hypothetical vaccine mandate (Z = -6.69, p < 0.001), although most parents (63%) had no change, while 26% increased and 11% decreased their vaccination likelihood. Parent concerns about their child contracting COVID-19 was associated with greater baseline vaccination likelihood. No single school-related concern explained the increased vaccination likelihood with a mandate. CONCLUSION: Parental school-related concerns did not drive changes in likelihood to vaccinate with a mandate.

Factors Associated With Parental Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination: A Multicenter Pediatric Emergency Department Cross-Sectional Analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: During the delta surge of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021, we sought to identify characteristics and beliefs associated with COVID-19 vaccination acceptance in parents of pediatric emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey-based study of the parents of children aged 3 to 16 years presenting to 1 of 9 pediatric EDs from June to August 2021 to assess the parental acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines. Using multiple variable regression, we ascertained which factors were associated with parental and pediatric COVID-19 vaccination acceptance. RESULTS: Of 1,491 parents approached, 1,298 (87%) participated, of whom 50% of the parents and 27% of their children aged 12 years or older and older were vaccinated. Characteristics associated with parental COVID-19 vaccination were trust in scientists (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 5.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.65 to 7.15), recent influenza vaccination (aOR 2.66, 95% CI 1.98 to 3.58), college degree (aOR 1.97, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.85), increasing parental age (aOR 1.80, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.22), a friend or family member hospitalized because of COVID-19 (aOR 1.34, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.72), and higher income (aOR 1.60, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.00). Characteristics associated with pediatric COVID-19 vaccination (children aged ≥12 years) or intended COVID-19 pediatric vaccination, once approved for use, (children aged <12 years) were parental trust in scientists (aOR 5.37, 95% CI 3.65 to 7.88), recent influenza vaccination (aOR 1.89, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.77), trust in the media (aOR 1.68, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.37), parental college degree (aOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.20), and increasing parental age (aOR 1.26, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.57). CONCLUSION: Overall COVID-19 vaccination acceptance was low. Trust in scientists had the strongest association with parental COVID-19 vaccine acceptance for both themselves and their children.

Facemasks: Perceptions and use in an ED population during COVID-19.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Facemask use is associated with reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Most surveys assessing perceptions and practices of mask use miss the most vulnerable racial, ethnic, and socio-economic populations. These same populations have suffered disproportionate impacts from the pandemic. The purpose of this study was to assess beliefs, access, and practices of mask wearing across 15 urban emergency department (ED) populations. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study of ED patients from December 2020 to March 2021 at 15 geographically diverse, safety net EDs across the US. The primary outcome was frequency of mask use outside the home and around others. Other outcome measures included having enough masks and difficulty obtaining them. RESULTS: Of 2,575 patients approached, 2,301 (89%) agreed to participate; nine had missing data pertaining to the primary outcome, leaving 2,292 included in the final analysis. A total of 79% of respondents reported wearing masks "all of the time" and 96% reported wearing masks over half the time. Subjects with PCPs were more likely to report wearing masks over half the time compared to those without PCPs (97% vs 92%). Individuals experiencing homelessness were less likely to wear a mask over half the time compared to those who were housed (81% vs 96%). CONCLUSIONS: Study participants reported high rates of facemask use. Respondents who did not have PCPs and those who were homeless were less likely to report wearing a mask over half the time and more likely to report barriers in obtaining masks. The ED may serve a critical role in education regarding, and provision of, masks for vulnerable populations.

The Rapid Evaluation of COVID-19 Vaccination in Emergency Departments for Underserved Patients Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Emergency departments (EDs) often serve vulnerable populations who may lack primary care and have suffered disproportionate COVID-19 pandemic effects. Comparing patients having and lacking a regular source of medical care and other ED patient characteristics, we assessed COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, reasons for not wanting the vaccine, perceived access to vaccine sites, and willingness to get the vaccine as part of ED care. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey conducted from December 10, 2020, to March 7, 2021, at 15 safety net US EDs. Primary outcomes were COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, reasons for vaccine hesitancy, and sites (including EDs) for potential COVID-19 vaccine receipt. RESULTS: Of 2,575 patients approached, 2,301 (89.4%) participated. Of the 18.4% of respondents who lacked a regular source of medical care, 65% used the ED as their usual source of health care. The overall rate of vaccine hesitancy was 39%; the range among the 15 sites was 28% to 58%. Respondents who lacked a regular source of medical care were more commonly vaccine hesitant than those who had a regular source of medical care (47% versus 38%, 9% difference, 95% confidence interval 4% to 14%). Other characteristics associated with greater vaccine hesitancy were younger age, female sex, Black race, Latinx ethnicity, and not having received an influenza vaccine in the past 5 years. Of the 61% who would accept a COVID-19 vaccine, 21% stated that they lacked a primary physician or clinic at which to receive it; the vast majority (95%) of these respondents would accept the COVID-19 vaccine as part of their care in the ED. CONCLUSION: ED patients who lack a regular source of medical care are particularly hesitant regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Most COVID-19 vaccine acceptors would accept it as part of their care in the ED. EDs may play pivotal roles in COVID-19 vaccine messaging and delivery to highly vulnerable populations.

Emergency physician stressors, concerns, and behavioral changes during COVID-19: A longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to provide a longitudinal assessment of anxiety levels and work and home concerns of U.S. emergency physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We performed a longitudinal, cross-sectional email survey of clinically active emergency physicians (attending, fellow, and resident) at seven academic emergency departments. Follow-up surveys were sent 4 to 6 weeks after the initial survey and assessed the following: COVID-19 patient exposure, availability of COVID-19 testing, levels of home and workplace anxiety/stress, changes in behaviors, and performance on a primary care posttraumatic stress disorder screen (PC-PTSD-5). Logistic regression explored factors associated with a high PC-PTSD-5 scale score (≥3), indicating increased risk for PTSD. RESULTS: Of the 426 surveyed initial respondents, 262 (61.5%) completed the follow-up survey. While 97.3% (255/262) reported treating suspected COVID-19 patients, most physicians (162/262, 61.8%) had not received testing themselves. In follow-up, respondents were most concerned about the relaxing of social distancing leading to a second wave (median score = 6, IQR = 4-7). Physicians reported a consistently high ability to order COVID-19 tests for patients (median score = 6, IQR = 5-7) and access to personal protective equipment (median score = 6, IQR = 5-6). Women physicians were more likely to score ≥ 3 than men on the PC-PTSD-5 screener on the initial survey (43.3% vs. 22.5%; Δ 20.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 9.3% to 31.5%), and despite decreases in overall proportions, this discrepancy remained in follow-up (34.7% vs. 16.8%; Δ 17.9%, 95% CI = 7.1% to 28.1%). In examining the relationship between demographics, living situations, and institution location on having a PC-PTSD-5 score ≥ 3, only female sex was associated with a PC-PTSD-5 score ≥ 3 (adjusted odds ratio = 2.48, 95% CI = 1.28 to 4.79). CONCLUSIONS: While exposure to suspected COVID-19 patients was nearly universal, stress levels in emergency physicians decreased with time. At both initial and follow-up assessments, women were more likely to test positive on the PC-PTSD-5 screener compared to men.

Academic Emergency Medicine Physicians' Anxiety Levels, Stressors, and Potential Stress Mitigation Measures During the Acceleration Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess anxiety and burnout levels, home life changes, and measures to relieve stress of U.S. academic emergency medicine (EM) physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic acceleration phase. METHODS: We sent a cross-sectional e-mail survey to all EM physicians at seven academic emergency departments. The survey incorporated items from validated stress scales and assessed perceptions and key elements in the following domains: numbers of suspected COVID-19 patients, availability of diagnostic testing, levels of home and workplace anxiety, severity of work burnout, identification of stressors, changes in home behaviors, and measures to decrease provider anxiety. RESULTS: A total of 426 (56.7%) EM physicians responded. On a scale of 1 to 7 (1 = not at all, 4 = somewhat, and 7 = extremely), the median (interquartile range) reported effect of the pandemic on both work and home stress levels was 5 (4-6). Reported levels of emotional exhaustion/burnout increased from a prepandemic median (IQR) of 3 (2-4) to since the pandemic started a median of 4 (3-6), with a difference in medians of 1.8 (95% confidence interval = 1.7 to 1.9). Most physicians (90.8%) reported changing their behavior toward family and friends, especially by decreasing signs of affection (76.8%). The most commonly cited measures cited to alleviate stress/anxiety were increasing personal protective equipment (PPE) availability, offering rapid COVID-19 testing at physician discretion, providing clearer communication about COVID-19 protocol changes, and assuring that physicians can take leave for care of family and self. CONCLUSIONS: During the acceleration phase, the COVID-19 pandemic has induced substantial workplace and home anxiety in academic EM physicians, and their exposure during work has had a major impact on their home lives. Measures cited to decrease stress include enhanced availability of PPE, rapid turnaround testing at provider discretion, and clear communication about COVID-19 protocol changes.

Thoracic Spine Fracture in the Panscan Era.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: In the current era of frequent chest computed tomography (CT) for adult blunt trauma evaluation, many minor injuries are diagnosed, potentially rendering traditional teachings obsolete. We seek to update teachings in regard to thoracic spine fracture by determining how often such fractures are observed on CT only (ie, not visualized on preceding trauma chest radiograph), the admission rate, mortality, and hospital length of stay of thoracic spine fracture patients, and how often thoracic spine fractures are clinically significant. METHODS: This was a preplanned analysis of prospectively collected data from the NEXUS Chest CT study conducted from 2011 to 2014 at 9 Level I trauma centers. The inclusion criteria were older than 14 years, blunt trauma occurring within 6 hours of emergency department (ED) presentation, and chest imaging (radiography, CT, or both) during ED evaluation. RESULTS: Of 11,477 enrolled subjects, 217 (1.9%) had a thoracic spine fracture; 181 of the 198 thoracic spine fracture patients (91.4%) who had both chest radiograph and CT had their thoracic spine fracture observed on CT only. Half of patients (49.8%) had more than 1 level of thoracic spine fracture, with a mean of 2.1 levels (SD 1.6 levels) of thoracic spine involved. Most patients (62%) had associated thoracic injuries. Compared with patients without thoracic spine fracture, those with it had higher admission rates (88.5% versus 47.2%; difference 41.3%; 95% confidence interval 36.3% to 45%), higher mortality (6.3% versus 4.0%; difference 2.3%; 95% confidence interval 0 to 6.7%), and longer length of stay (median 9 versus 6 days; difference 3 days; P<.001). However, thoracic spine fracture patients without other thoracic injury had mortality similar to that of patients without thoracic spine fracture (4.6% versus 4%; difference 0.6%; 95% confidence interval -2.5% to 8.6%). Less than half of thoracic spine fractures (47.4%) were clinically significant: 40.8% of patients received thoracolumbosacral orthosis bracing, 10.9% had surgery, and 3.8% had an associated neurologic deficit. CONCLUSION: Thoracic spine fracture is uncommon. Most thoracic spine fractures are associated with other thoracic injuries, and mortality is more closely related to these other injuries than to the thoracic spine fracture itself. More than half of thoracic spine fractures are clinically insignificant; surgical intervention is uncommon and neurologic injury is rare.

Combining qSOFA criteria with initial lactate levels: Improved screening of septic patients for critical illness.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the addition of lactate to Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) scoring improves emergency department (ED) screening of septic patients for critical illness. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients admitted to the hospital from the ED with infectious disease-related illnesses. We recorded qSOFA criteria and initial lactate levels in the first 6 h of ED stay. Our primary outcome was a composite of hospital death, vasopressor use, and intensive care unit stay ≤72 h of presentation. Diagnostic test characteristics were determined for: 1) lactate levels ≥2 and ≥4; 2) qSOFA scores ≥1, ≥2, and =3; and 3) combinations of these. RESULTS: Of 3743 patients, 2584 had a lactate drawn ≤6 h of ED stay and 18% met the primary outcome. The qSOFA scores were ≥1, ≥2, and =3 in 59.2%, 22.0%, and 5.3% of patients, respectively, and 34.4% had a lactate level ≥2 and 7.9% had a lactate level ≥4. The combination of qSOFA ≥1 OR Lactate ≥2 had the highest sensitivity, 94.0% (95% CI: 91.3-95.9). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of qSOFA ≥1 OR Lactate ≥2 provides substantially improved sensitivity for the screening of critical illness compared to isolated lactate and qSOFA thresholds.

Blunt Traumatic Aortic Injury in the Pan-scan Era.

BACKGROUND: In the era of frequent head-to-pelvis computed tomography (CT) for adult blunt trauma evaluation, we sought to update teachings regarding aortic injury by determining 1) the incidence of aortic injury; 2) the proportion of patients with isolated aortic injury (without other concomitant thoracic injury); 3) the clinical implications of aortic injury (hospital mortality, length of stay [LOS], and rate of surgical interventions); and 4) the screening value of traditional risk factors/markers (such as high-energy mechanism and widened mediastinum on chest x-ray [CXR]) for aortic injury, compared to newer criteria from the recently developed NEXUS Chest CT decision instrument (DI). METHODS: We conducted a preplanned analysis of patients prospectively enrolled in the NEXUS Chest studies at 10 Level I trauma centers with the following inclusion criteria: age > 14 years, blunt trauma within 6 hours of ED presentation, and receiving chest imaging during ED trauma evaluation. RESULTS: Of 24,010 enrolled subjects, 42 (0.17%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.13% to 0.24%) had aortic injury. Most patients (79%, 95% CI = 64% to 88%) had an associated thoracic injury, with rib fractures, pneumothorax/hemothorax, and pulmonary contusion occurring most frequently. Compared to patients without aortic injury this cohort had similar mortality (9.5%, 95% CI = 3.8% to 22.1% vs. 5.8%, 95% CI = 5.4% to 6.3%), longer median hospital LOS (11 days vs. 3 days, p < 0.01), and higher median Injury Severity Score (29 vs. 5, p < 0.001). High-energy mechanism and widened mediastinum on CXR had low sensitivity for aortic injury (76% [95% CI = 62% to 87%] and 33% [95% CI = 21% to 49%], respectively), compared to the NEXUS Chest CT DI (sensitivity 100% [95% CI = 92% to 100%]). CONCLUSIONS: Aortic injury is rare in adult ED blunt trauma patients who survive to receive imaging. Most ED aortic injury patients have associated thoracic injuries and survive to hospital discharge. Widened mediastinum on CXR and high-energy mechanism have relatively low screening sensitivity for aortic injury, but the NEXUS Chest DI detected all cases.

The Prevalence of Modifiable Parental Behaviors Associated with Inadvertent Pediatric Medication Ingestions.

INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to examine potential risk factors and modifiable behaviors that could lead to pediatric poisonings. Our secondary objectives were to explore socioeconomic factors associated with caregiver (parent/guardian) safe medication storage and knowledge of poison control contact information. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional survey of caregivers of patients 2-10 years old presenting to an inner city pediatric emergency department. Caregiver and patient demographic data, prescription and nonprescription medication type, storage and when and where taken, were recorded. We used multivariable regression to explore factors associated with secure prescription medication storage and knowledge of poison control center contact information. RESULTS: Of 1457 caregivers, 29% took daily prescription and 17% took daily non-prescription medications. Only 25% of caregivers stored their prescription medications in a secure place, and <3% stored medications in a locked drawer or safe. Of demographic and socioeconomic factors, only income ≥$80,000 was associated with storage of prescription medication in a secure place (odds ratio [OR], 2.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-4.81). When asked how they would access poison control in case of an ingestion, the majority, 86%, had an appropriate plan. In multivariable regression, the only factor associated with knowledge of poison control center contact information was college education in the caregiver (OR 1.6; 95% CI, 1.10-2.32). CONCLUSION: A minority of caregivers store medications in a safe place and even fewer keep prescription medications under lock and key. The majority, however, were aware of how to contact a poison control center in case of ingestion.

Pneumothorax and Hemothorax in the Era of Frequent Chest Computed Tomography for the Evaluation of Adult Patients With Blunt Trauma.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Although traditional teachings in regard to pneumothorax and hemothorax generally recommend chest tube placement and hospital admission, the increasing use of chest computed tomography (CT) in blunt trauma evaluation may detect more minor pneumothorax and hemothorax that might indicate a need to modify these traditional practices. We determine the incidence of pneumothorax and hemothorax observed on CT only and the incidence of isolated pneumothorax and hemothorax (pneumothorax and hemothorax occurring without other thoracic injuries), and describe the clinical implications of these injuries. METHODS: This was a planned secondary analysis of 2 prospective, observational studies of adult patients with blunt trauma, NEXUS Chest (January 2009 to December 2012) and NEXUS Chest CT (August 2011 to May 2014), set in 10 Level I US trauma centers. Participants' inclusion criteria were older than 14 years, presentation to the emergency department (ED) within 6 hours of blunt trauma, and receipt of chest imaging (chest radiograph, chest CT, or both) during their ED evaluation. Exposure(s) (for observational studies) were that patients had trauma and chest imaging. Primary measures and outcomes included the incidence of pneumothorax and hemothorax observed on CT only versus on both chest radiograph and chest CT, the incidence of isolated pneumothorax and hemothorax (pneumothorax and hemothorax occurring without other thoracic injuries), and admission rates, hospital length of stay, mortality, and frequency of chest tube placement for these injuries. RESULTS: Of 21,382 enrolled subjects, 1,064 (5%) had a pneumothorax and 384 (1.8%) had a hemothorax. Of the 8,661 patients who received both a chest radiograph and a chest CT, 910 (10.5%) had a pneumothorax, with 609 (67%) observed on CT only; 319 (3.7%) had a hemothorax, with 254 (80%) observed on CT only. Of 1,117 patients with pneumothorax, hemothorax, or both, 108 (10%) had isolated pneumothorax or hemothorax. Patients with pneumothorax observed on CT only had a lower chest tube placement rate (30% versus 65%; difference in proportions [Δ] -35%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -28% to 42%), admission rate (94% versus 99%; Δ 5%; 95% CI 3% to 8%), and median length of stay (5 versus 6 days; difference 1 day; 95% CI 0 to 2 days) but similar mortality compared with patients with pneumothorax observed on chest radiograph and CT. Patients with hemothorax observed on CT had only a lower chest tube placement rate (49% versus 68%; Δ -19%; 95% CI -31% to -5%) but similar admission rate, mortality, and median length of stay compared with patients with hemothorax observed on chest radiograph and CT. Compared with patients with other thoracic injury, those with isolated pneumothorax or hemothorax had a lower chest tube placement rate (20% versus 43%; Δ -22%; 95% CI -30% to -13%), median length of stay (4 versus 5 days; difference -1 day; 95% CI -3 to 1 days), and admission rate (44% versus 97%; Δ -53%; 95% CI -62% to -43%), with an admission rate comparable to that of patients without pneumothorax or hemothorax (49%). CONCLUSION: Under current imaging protocols for adult blunt trauma evaluation, most pneumothoraces and hemothoraces are observed on CT only and few occur as isolated thoracic injury. The clinical implications (admission rates and frequency of chest tube placement) of pneumothorax and hemothorax observed on CT only and isolated pneumothorax or hemothorax are lower than those of patients with pneumothorax and hemothorax observed on chest radiograph and CT and of those who have other thoracic injury, respectively.

Medical Student Perception of Resident Versus Attending Contributions to Education on Co-Supervised Shifts During the Emergency Medicine Clerkship.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess medical student perception of resident and attending contributions to nine Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education educational objectives during their emergency medicine (EM) clerkship. METHODS: This was a prospective survey study of fourth-year medical students during their EM clerkship in a single academic emergency department. Students anonymously completed end-of-shift surveys if supervised by both resident and attending physicians. Students estimated the relative educational contribution from resident and attending on a 100-point visual analog scale (-50 to 50) with -50 = 100% resident contribution, +50 = 100% attending contribution, and 0 = equal contributions by resident and attendings. Nine educational objectives were surveyed: evidence-based medicine (EBM), clinical knowledge, chart documentation, bedside teaching, patient throughput, interpersonal communication, oral patient presentations, efficiency, and procedural instruction. RESULTS: We collected 274 surveys from 65 students. Of the nine objectives, students perceived that residents contributed more than attendings in eight of nine (results reported as mean values with 95% confidence intervals): clinical knowledge -4.5 (-7.3 to -1.7), chart documentation -8.0 (-12.0 to -4.0), bedside teaching -8.6 (-12.0 to -5.2), throughput -13.0 (-16.4 to -9.6), oral presentations -14.2 (-17.3 to -11), efficiency -14.4 (-17.6 to -11.3), procedural instruction -20.2 (-24.0 to -16.5), and interpersonal communication -13.5 (-17.7 to -9.4). The sole outlier favoring attendings was EBM: 5.5 (1.9 to 9.1). CONCLUSIONS: Medical students perceive resident physicians to contribute more than attendings for most of their EM educational objectives, with faculty providing the greatest contribution to their EBM training.

Comparison of qSOFA with current emergency department tools for screening of patients with sepsis for critical illness.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) to systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), severe sepsis criteria and lactate levels for their ability to identify ED patients with sepsis with critical illness. METHODS: We conducted this multicenter retrospective cohort study at five US hospitals, enrolling all adult patients admitted to these hospitals from their EDs with infectious disease-related illnesses from 1 January 2016 to 30 April 2016. We abstracted clinical variables for SIRS, severe sepsis and qSOFA scores, using values in the first 6 hours of ED stay. Our primary outcome was critical illness, defined as one or more of the composite outcomes of death, vasopressor use or intensive care unit (ICU) admission within 72 hours of presentation. We determined diagnostic test characteristics for qSOFA scores, SIRS, severe sepsis criteria and lactate level thresholds. MAIN RESULTS: Of 3743 enrolled patients, 512 (13.7%) had the primary composite outcome. The qSOFA scores were ≥1, >2 and 3 in 1839 (49.1%), 626 (16.7%) and 146 (3.9%) patients, respectively; 2202 (58.8%) met SIRS criteria and 1085 (29.0%) met severe sepsis criteria. qSOFA ≥1 and SIRS had similarly high sensitivity [86.1% (95% CI 82.8% to 89.0%) vs 86.7% (95% CI 83.5% to 89.5%)], but qSOFA ≥1 had higher specificity [56.7% (95% CI 55.0% to 58.5%) vs 45.6% (43.9% to 47.3%); mean difference 11.1% (95% CI 8.7% to 13.6%)]. qSOFA ≥2 had higher specificity than severe sepsis criteria [89.1% (88.0% to 90.2%) vs 77.5% (76.0% to 78.9%); mean difference 11.6% (9.8% to 13.4%)]. qSOFA ≥1 had greater sensitivity than a lactate level ≥2 (mean difference 24.6% (19.2% to 29.9%)). CONCLUSION: For patients admitted from the ED with infectious disease diagnoses, qSOFA criteria performed as well or better than SIRS criteria, severe sepsis criteria and lactate levels in predicting critical illness.

Rib Fracture Diagnosis in the Panscan Era.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: With increased use of chest computed tomography (CT) in trauma evaluation, traditional teachings in regard to rib fracture morbidity and mortality may no longer be accurate. We seek to determine rates of rib fracture observed on chest CT only; admission and mortality of patients with isolated rib fractures, rib fractures observed on CT only, and first or second rib fractures; and first or second rib fracture-associated great vessel injury. METHODS: We conducted a planned secondary analysis of 2 prospectively enrolled cohorts of the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study chest studies, which evaluated patients with blunt trauma who were older than 14 years and received chest imaging in the emergency department. We defined rib fractures and other thoracic injuries according to CT reports and followed patients through their hospital course to determine outcomes. RESULTS: Of 8,661 patients who had both chest radiograph and chest CT, 2,071 (23.9%) had rib fractures, and rib fractures were observed on chest CT only in 1,368 cases (66.1%). Rib fracture patients had higher admission rates (88.7% versus 45.8%; mean difference 42.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 41.4% to 44.4%) and mortality (5.6% versus 2.7%; mean difference 2.9%; 95% CI 1.8% to 4.0%) than patients without rib fracture. The mortality of patients with rib fracture observed on chest CT only was not statistically significantly different from that of patients with fractures also observed on chest radiograph (4.8% versus 5.7%; mean difference -0.9%; 95% CI -3.1% to 1.1%). Patients with first or second rib fractures had significantly higher mortality (7.4% versus 4.1%; mean difference 3.3%; 95% CI 0.2% to 7.1%) and prevalence of concomitant great vessel injury (2.8% versus 0.6%; mean difference 2.2%; 95% CI 0.6% to 4.9%) than patients with fractures of ribs 3 to 12, and the odds ratio of great vessel injury with first or second rib fracture was 4.4 (95% CI 1.8 to 10.4). CONCLUSION: Under trauma imaging protocols that commonly incorporate chest CT, two thirds of rib fractures were observed on chest CT only. Patients with rib fractures had higher admission rates and mortality than those without rib fractures. First or second rib fractures were associated with significantly higher mortality and great vessel injury.

Health Evaluation and Referral Assistant: A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Web-Based Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment System to Reduce Risky Alcohol Use Among Emergency Department Patients.

BACKGROUND: Computer technologies hold promise for implementing alcohol screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT). Questions concerning the most effective and appropriate SBIRT model remain. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a computerized SBIRT system called the Health Evaluation and Referral Assistant (HERA) on risky alcohol use treatment initiation. METHODS: Alcohol users (N=319) presenting to an emergency department (ED) were considered for enrollment. Those enrolled (n=212) were randomly assigned to the HERA, to complete a patient-administered assessment using a tablet computer, or a minimal-treatment control, and were followed for 3 months. Analyses compared alcohol treatment provider contact, treatment initiation, treatment completion, and alcohol use across condition using univariate comparisons, generalized estimating equations (GEEs), and post hoc chi-square analyses. RESULTS: HERA participants (n=212; control=115; intervention=97) did not differ between conditions on initial contact with an alcohol treatment provider, treatment initiation, treatment completion, or change in risky alcohol use behavior. Subanalyses indicated that HERA participants, who accepted a faxed referral, were more likely to initiate contact with a treatment provider and initiate treatment for risky alcohol use, but were not more likely to continue engaging in treatment, or to complete treatment and change risky alcohol use behavior over the 3-month period following the ED visit. CONCLUSIONS: The HERA promoted initial contact with an alcohol treatment provider and initiation of treatment for those who accepted the faxed referral, but it did not lead to reduced risky alcohol use behavior. Factors which may have limited the HERA's impact include lack of support for the intervention by clinical staff, the low intensity of the brief and stand-alone design of the intervention, and barriers related to patient follow-through, (eg, a lack of transportation or childcare, fees for services, or schedule conflicts). TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): NCT01153373; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01153373 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6pHQEpuIF).

Prevalence and Diagnostic Performance of Isolated and Combined NEXUS Chest CT Decision Criteria.

OBJECTIVES: The use of chest computed tomography (CT) to evaluate emergency department patients with adult blunt trauma is rising. The NEXUS Chest CT decision instruments are highly sensitive identifiers of adult blunt trauma patients with thoracic injuries. However, many patients without injury exhibit one of more of the criteria so cannot be classified "low risk." We sought to determine screening performance of both individual and combined NEXUS Chest CT criteria as predictors of thoracic injury to inform chest CT imaging decisions in "non-low-risk" patients. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of data on patients in the derivation and validation cohorts of the prospective, observational NEXUS Chest CT study, performed September 2011 to May 2014 in 11 Level I trauma centers. Institutional review board approval was obtained at all study sites. Adult blunt trauma patients receiving chest CT were included. The primary outcome was injury and major clinical injury prevalence and screening performance in patients with combinations of one, two, or three of seven individual NEXUS Chest CT criteria. RESULTS: Across the 11 study sites, rates of chest CT performance ranged from 15.5% to 77.2% (median = 43.6%). We found injuries in 1,493/5,169 patients (28.9%) who had chest CT; 269 patients (5.2%) had major clinical injury (e.g., pneumothorax requiring chest tube). With sensitivity of 73.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 68.1 to 78.6) and specificity of 83.9 (95% CI = 83.6 to 84.2) for major clinical injury, abnormal chest-x-ray (CXR) was the single most important screening criterion. When patients had only abnormal CXR, injury and major clinical injury prevalences were 60.7% (95% CI = 52.2% to 68.6%) and 12.9% (95% CI = 8.3% to 19.4%), respectively. Injury and major clinical injury prevalences when any other single criterion alone (other than abnormal CXR) was present were 16.8% (95% CI = 15.2% to 18.6%) and 1.1% (95% CI = 0.1% to 1.8%), respectively. Injury and major clinical injury prevalences among patients when two and three criteria (not abnormal CXR) were present were 25.5% (95% CI = 23.1% to 28.0%) and 3.2% (95% CI = 2.3% to 4.4%) and 34.9% (95% CI = 31.0% to 39.0%) and 2.7% (95% CI = 1.6% to 4.5%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that clinicians check for the six clinical NEXUS Chest CT criteria and review the CXR (if obtained). If patients have one clinical criterion (other than abnormal CXR), they will have a very low risk of clinically major injury. We recommend that clinicians discuss the potential risks and benefit of chest CT in these cases. The risks of injury and major clinical injury rise incrementally with more criteria, rendering the risk/benefit ratio toward performing CT in most cases. If the patient has an abnormal CXR, the risks of major clinical injury and minor injury are considerably higher than with the other criteria-chest CT may be indicated in cases requiring greater anatomic detail and injury characterization.

Prevalence of Chest Injury With the Presence of NEXUS Chest Criteria: Data to Inform Shared Decisionmaking About Imaging Use.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The NEXUS chest decision instrument identifies a very-low-risk population of patients with blunt trauma for whom chest imaging can be avoided. However, it requires that all 7 National Emergency X-Ray Utilization Study (NEXUS) chest criteria be absent. To inform patient and physician shared decisionmaking about imaging, we describe the test characteristics of individual criteria of the NEXUS chest decision instrument and provide the prevalence of injuries when 1, 2, or 3 of the 7 criteria are present. METHODS: We conducted this secondary analysis of 2 prospectively collected cohorts of patients with blunt trauma who were older than 14 years and enrolled in NEXUS chest studies between December 2009 and January 2012. Physicians at 9 US Level I trauma centers recorded the presence or absence of the 7 NEXUS chest criteria. We calculated test characteristics of each criterion and combinations of criteria for the outcome measures of major clinical injuries and thoracic injury observed on chest imaging. RESULTS: We enrolled 21,382 patients, of whom 992 (4.6%) had major clinical injuries and 3,135 (14.7%) had thoracic injuries observed on chest imaging. Sensitivities of individual test characteristics ranged from 15% to 56% for major clinical injury and 14% to 53% for thoracic injury observed on chest imaging, with specificities varying from 71% to 84% for major clinical injury and 67% to 84% for thoracic injury observed on chest imaging. Individual criteria were associated with a prevalence of major clinical injury between 1.9% and 3.8% and of thoracic injury observed on chest imaging between 5.3% and 11.5%. CONCLUSION: Patients with isolated NEXUS chest criteria have low rates of major clinical injury. The risk of major clinical injury for patients with 2 or 3 factors range from 1.7% to 16.6%, depending on the combination of criteria. Criteria-specific risks could be used to inform shared decisionmaking about the need for imaging by patients and their physicians.

Pulmonary contusion in the pan-scan era.

BACKGROUND: Although pulmonary contusion (PC) is traditionally considered a major injury requiring intensive monitoring, more frequent detection by chest CT in blunt trauma evaluation may diagnose clinically irrelevant PC. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine (1) the frequency of PC diagnosis by chest CT versus chest X-ray (CXR), (2) the frequency of PC-associated thoracic injuries, and (3) PC patient clinical outcomes (mortality, length of stay [LOS], and need for mechanical ventilation), considering patients with PC seen on chest CT only (SOCTO) and isolated PC (PC without other thoracic injury). METHODS: Focusing primarily on patients who had both CXR and chest CT, we conducted a pre-planned analysis of two prospectively enrolled cohorts with the following inclusion criteria: age >14 years, blunt trauma within 24h of emergency department presentation, and receiving CXR or chest CT during trauma evaluation. We defined PC and other thoracic injuries according to CT reports and followed patients through their hospital course to determine clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Of 21,382 enrolled subjects, 8661 (40.5%) had both CXR and chest CT and 1012 (11.7%) of these had PC, making it the second most common injury after rib fracture. PC was SOCTO in 739 (73.0%). Most (73.5%) PC patients had other thoracic injury. PC patients had higher admission rates (91.9% versus 61.7%; mean difference 30.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 28.1-32.1%) and mortality (4.7% versus 2.0%: mean difference 2.8%; 95% CI 1.6-4.3%) than non-PC patients, but mortality was restricted to patients with other injuries (injury severity scores>10). Patients with PC SOCTO had low rates of associated mechanical ventilation (4.6%) and patients with isolated PC SOCTO had low mortality (2.6%), comparable to that of patients without PC. CONCLUSIONS: PC is commonly diagnosed under current blunt trauma imaging protocols and most PC are SOCTO with other thoracic injury. Given that they are associated with low mortality and uncommon need for mechanical ventilation, isolated PC and PC SOCTO may be of limited clinical significance.

Derivation and validation of two decision instruments for selective chest CT in blunt trauma: a multicenter prospective observational study (NEXUS Chest CT).

BACKGROUND: Unnecessary diagnostic imaging leads to higher costs, longer emergency department stays, and increased patient exposure to ionizing radiation. We sought to prospectively derive and validate two decision instruments (DIs) for selective chest computed tomography (CT) in adult blunt trauma patients. METHODS AND FINDINGS: From September 2011 to May 2014, we prospectively enrolled blunt trauma patients over 14 y of age presenting to eight US, urban level 1 trauma centers in this observational study. During the derivation phase, physicians recorded the presence or absence of 14 clinical criteria before viewing chest imaging results. We determined injury outcomes by CT radiology readings and categorized injuries as major or minor according to an expert-panel-derived clinical classification scheme. We then employed recursive partitioning to derive two DIs: Chest CT-All maximized sensitivity for all injuries, and Chest CT-Major maximized sensitivity for only major thoracic injuries (while increasing specificity). In the validation phase, we employed similar methodology to prospectively test the performance of both DIs. We enrolled 11,477 patients-6,002 patients in the derivation phase and 5,475 patients in the validation phase. The derived Chest CT-All DI consisted of (1) abnormal chest X-ray, (2) rapid deceleration mechanism, (3) distracting injury, (4) chest wall tenderness, (5) sternal tenderness, (6) thoracic spine tenderness, and (7) scapular tenderness. The Chest CT-Major DI had the same criteria without rapid deceleration mechanism. In the validation phase, Chest CT-All had a sensitivity of 99.2% (95% CI 95.4%-100%), a specificity of 20.8% (95% CI 19.2%-22.4%), and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.8% (95% CI 98.9%-100%) for major injury, and a sensitivity of 95.4% (95% CI 93.6%-96.9%), a specificity of 25.5% (95% CI 23.5%-27.5%), and a NPV of 93.9% (95% CI 91.5%-95.8%) for either major or minor injury. Chest CT-Major had a sensitivity of 99.2% (95% CI 95.4%-100%), a specificity of 31.7% (95% CI 29.9%-33.5%), and a NPV of 99.9% (95% CI 99.3%-100%) for major injury and a sensitivity of 90.7% (95% CI 88.3%-92.8%), a specificity of 37.9% (95% CI 35.8%-40.1%), and a NPV of 91.8% (95% CI 89.7%-93.6%) for either major or minor injury. Regarding the limitations of our work, some clinicians may disagree with our injury classification and sensitivity thresholds for injury detection. CONCLUSIONS: We prospectively derived and validated two DIs (Chest CT-All and Chest CT-Major) that identify blunt trauma patients with clinically significant thoracic injuries with high sensitivity, allowing for a safe reduction of approximately 25%-37% of unnecessary chest CTs. Trauma evaluation protocols that incorporate these DIs may decrease unnecessary costs and radiation exposure in the disproportionately young trauma population.