Ultrasound-guided Placement of Single-lumen Peripheral Intravenous Catheters in the Internal Jugular Vein.

INTRODUCTION: The peripheral internal jugular (IJ), also called the "easy IJ," is an alternative to peripheral venous access reserved for patients with difficult intravenous (IV) access. The procedure involves placing a single-lumen catheter in the IJ vein under ultrasound (US) guidance. As this technique is relatively new, the details regarding the ease of the procedure, how exactly it should be performed, and the safety of the procedure are uncertain. Our primary objective was to determine the success rate for peripheral IJ placement. Secondarily, we evaluated the time needed to complete the procedure and assessed for complications. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-center study of US-guided peripheral IJ placement using a 2.5-inch, 18-gauge catheter on a convenience sample of patients with at least two unsuccessful attempts at peripheral IV placement by nursing staff. Peripheral IJ lines were placed by emergency medicine (EM) attending physicians and EM residents who had completed at least five IJ central lines. All physicians who placed lines for the study watched a 15-minute lecture about peripheral IJ technique. A research assistant monitored each line to assess for complications until the patient was discharged. RESULTS: We successfully placed a peripheral IJ in 34 of 35 enrolled patients (97.1%). The median number of attempts required for successful cannulation was one (interquartile range (IQR): 1 to 2). The median time to successful line placement was 3 minutes and 6 seconds (IQR: 59 seconds to 4 minutes and 14 seconds). Two lines failed after placement, and one of the 34 successfully placed peripheral IJ lines (2.9%) had a complication - a local hematoma. There were, however, no arterial punctures or pneumothoraces. Although only eight of 34 lines were placed using sterile attire, there were no line infections. CONCLUSION: Our research adds to the growing body of evidence supporting US-guided peripheral internal jugular access as a safe and convenient procedure alternative for patients who have difficult IV access.

Emergency physician practices and requirements regarding the medical screening examination of psychiatric patients.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the testing requirements and practices of emergency physicians (EPs) when conducting a medical screening examination of psychiatric patients. METHODS: An anonymous survey was developed and mailed to 500 EPs randomly selected through American College of Emergency Physicians membership rolls. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety surveys were returned (58%). Eighty-five percent of the respondents were male, 70% practiced in a community setting and 28% in an academic setting, 58% were emergency medicine (EM) residency-trained, and 88% were EM board-certified or board-eligible. Ninety-eight percent stated they were actively involved with the psychiatric medical screening exam (PMSE). Routine testing was required by 35% of the respondents, with 16% being required by ED protocol, and 84% by the psychiatrist/psychiatric institute. Of those with required testing, tests required were: complete blood cell count (56%), electrolytes (56%), serum alcohol (85%), serum toxicology screen (31%), urine toxicology screen (86%), electrocardiogram (18%), liver function test (16%), blood urea nitrogen (45%), and creatinine (40%). Many clinicians believed that certain tests were unnecessary as part of a PMSE. There was no statistical difference between the opinions of the physicians required to test and those not required to test in terms of which tests they thought were a necessary part of a PMSE regardless of the patient's clinical presentation. The EM-trained physicians were also found to be significantly less likely to think certain tests were necessary for the PMSE when compared with the non-EM-trained physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Routine testing was required as part of the medical screening examination of psychiatric patients for only one-third of the respondents. Few respondents believed that any of these tests were necessary. Emergency medicine-trained physicians were less likely to feel that routine testing was necessary.