Emergency physician gender and head computed tomography orders for older adults who have fallen.

OBJECTIVE: Physicians vary in their computed tomography (CT) scan usage. It remains unclear how physician gender relates to clinical practice or patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the association between physician gender and decision to order head CT scans for older emergency patients who had fallen. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective observational cohort study conducted in 11 hospital emergency departments (EDs) in Canada and the United States. The primary study enrolled patients who were 65 years and older who presented to the ED after a fall. The analysis evaluated treating physician gender adjusted for multiple clinical variables. Primary analysis used a hierarchical logistic regression model to evaluate the association between treating physician gender and the patient receiving a head CT scan. Secondary analysis reported the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for diagnosing intracranial bleeding by physician gender. RESULTS: There were 3663 patients and 256 physicians included in the primary analysis. In the adjusted analysis, women physicians were no more likely to order a head CT than men (OR 1.26, 95% confidence interval 0.98-1.61). In the secondary analysis of 2294 patients who received a head CT, physician gender was not associated with finding a clinically important intracranial bleed. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant association between physician gender and ordering head CT scans for older emergency patients who had fallen. For patients where CT scans were ordered, there was no significant relationship between physician gender and the diagnosis of clinically important intracranial bleeding.

Randomized controlled trials in resuscitation.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are a gold standard in research and crucial to our understanding of resuscitation science. Many trials in resuscitation have had neutral findings, questioning which treatments are effective in cardiac resuscitation. While it is possible than many interventions do not improve patient outcomes, it is also possible that the large proportion of neutral findings are partially due to design limitations. RCTs can be challenging to implement, and require extensive resources, time, and funding. In addition, conducting RCTs in the out-of-hospital setting provides unique challenges that must be considered for a successful trial. This article will outline many important aspects of conducting trials in resuscitation in the out-of-hospital setting including patient and outcome selection, trial design, and statistical analysis.

Evaluating the Reliability of a Remote Acuity Prediction Tool in a Canadian Academic Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: There is increasing interest in harnessing artificial intelligence to virtually triage patients seeking care. The objective was to examine the reliability of a virtual machine learning algorithm to remotely predict acuity scores for patients seeking emergency department (ED) care by applying the algorithm to retrospective ED data. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of adult patients conducted at an academic tertiary care ED (annual census 65,000) from January 2021 to August 2022. Data including ED visit date and time, patient age, sex, reason for visit, presenting complaint and patient-reported pain score were used by the machine learning algorithm to predict acuity scores. The algorithm was designed to up-triage high-risk complaints to promote safety for remote use. The predicted scores were then compared to nurse-led triage scores previously derived in real time using the electronic Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (eCTAS), an electronic triage decision-support tool used in the ED. Interrater reliability was estimated using kappa statistics with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: In total, 21,469 unique ED patient encounters were included. Exact modal agreement was achieved for 10,396 (48.4%) patient encounters. Interrater reliability ranged from poor to fair, as estimated using unweighted kappa (0.18, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.19), linear-weighted kappa (0.25, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.26), and quadratic-weighted kappa (0.36, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.37) statistics. Using the nurse-led eCTAS score as the reference, the machine learning algorithm overtriaged 9,897 (46.1%) and undertriaged 1,176 (5.5%) cases. Some of the presenting complaints under-triaged were conditions generally requiring further probing to delineate their nature, including abnormal lab/imaging results, visual disturbance, and fever. CONCLUSION: This machine learning algorithm needs further refinement before being safely implemented for patient use.

Impact of a peer-support programme to improve loneliness and social isolation due to COVID-19: does adding a secure, user friendly video-conference solution work better than telephone support alone? Protocol for a three-arm randomised clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has forced the implementation of physical distancing and self-isolation strategies worldwide. However, these measures have significant potential to increase social isolation and loneliness. Among older people, loneliness has increased from 40% to 70% during COVID-19. Previous research indicates loneliness is strongly associated with increased mortality. Thus, strategies to mitigate the unintended consequences of social isolation and loneliness are urgently needed. Following the Obesity-Related Behavioural Intervention Trials model for complex behavioural interventions, we describe a protocol for a three-arm randomised clinical trial to reduce social isolation and loneliness. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, outcome assessor blinded, three-arm randomised controlled trial comparing 12 weeks of: (1) the HOspitals WoRking in Unity ('HOW R U?') weekly volunteer-peer support telephone intervention; (2) 'HOW R U?' deliver using a video-conferencing solution and (3) a standard care group. The study will follow Consolidated Standard of Reporting Trials guidelines.We will recruit 24-26 volunteers who will receive a previously tested half day lay-training session that emphasises a strength-based approach and safety procedures. We will recruit 141 participants ≥70 years of age discharged from two participating emergency departments or referred from hospital family medicine, geriatric or geriatric psychiatry clinics. Eligible participants will have probable baseline loneliness (score ≥2 on the de Jong six-item loneliness scale). We will measure change in loneliness, social isolation (Lubben social network scale), mood (Geriatric Depression Score) and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) at 12-14 weeks postintervention initiation and again at 24-26 weeks. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval has been granted by the participating research ethics boards. Participants randomised to standard care will be offered their choice of telephone or video-conferencing interventions after 12 weeks. Results will be disseminated through journal publications, conference presentations, social media and through the International Federation of Emergency Medicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05228782.

Health care utilization and outcomes of patients seen by virtual urgent care versus in-person emergency department care.

BACKGROUND: Virtual urgent care (VUC) is intended to support diversion of patients with low-acuity complaints and reduce the need for in-person emergency department visits. We aimed to describe subsequent health care utilization and outcomes of patients who used VUC compared with similar patients who had an in-person emergency department visit. METHODS: We used patient-level encounter data that were prospectively collected for patients using VUC services provided by 14 pilot programs in Ontario, Canada. We linked the data to provincial administrative databases to identify subsequent 30-day health care utilization and outcomes. We defined 2 subgroups of VUC users; those with a documented prompt referral to an emergency department by a VUC provider, and those without. We matched patients in each cohort to an equal number of patients presenting to an emergency department in person, based on encounter date, medical concern and the logit of a propensity score. For the subgroup of patients not promptly referred to an emergency department, we matched patients to those who were seen in an emergency department and then discharged home. RESULTS: Of the 19 595 patient VUC visits linked to administrative data, we matched 2129 patients promptly referred to the emergency department by a VUC provider to patients presenting to the emergency department in person. Index visit hospital admissions (9.4% v. 8.7%), 30-day emergency department visits (17.0% v. 17.5%), and hospital admissions (12.9% v. 11.0%) were similar between the groups. We matched 14 179 patients who were seen by a VUC provider with no documented referral to the emergency department. Patients seen by VUC were more likely to have a subsequent in-person emergency department visit within 72 hours (13.7% v. 7.0%), 7 days (16.5% v. 10.3%) and 30 days (21.9% v. 17.9%), but hospital admissions were similar within 72 hours (1.1% v. 1.3%), and higher within 30 days for patients who were discharged home from the emergency department (2.6% v. 3.4%). INTERPRETATION: The impact of the provincial VUC pilot program on subsequent health care utilization was limited. There is a need to better understand the inherent limitations of virtual care and ensure future virtual providers have timely access to in-person outpatient resources, to prevent subsequent emergency department visits.

Hospital admission from the emergency department for selected emergent diagnoses during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario: a retrospective population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Avoidance of care during the pandemic may have contributed to delays in care, and as a result, worse patient outcomes. We evaluated markers of illness acuity on presentation to the emergency department among patients with non-COVID-19-related emergent diagnoses and associated outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study using linked administrative data from Ontario. We selected 4 emergent diagnoses, namely appendicitis, ectopic pregnancy, renal failure and diabetic ketoacidosis. We used the nonemergent diagnosis of cellulitis as a control. Our primary outcome of interest was hospital admission. Secondary outcomes were ambulance arrival, surgical intervention, subsequent hospital admission within 30 days of discharge from the emergency department or hospital and 30-day mortality. We compared outcomes during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic (Mar. 15-Dec. 31, 2020) with a control period (Mar. 15-Dec. 31, 2018, and Mar. 15-Dec. 31, 2019). RESULTS: Emergency department visits for all conditions initially decreased during the pandemic. During this period, patients across all study diagnoses were more likely to arrive to the emergency department via ambulance. Patients with an ectopic pregnancy had higher odds of surgery in the pandemic period (odds ratio [OR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.55) but this was not observed among patients with appendicitis. Patients with renal failure had increased odds of hospital admission (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04-1.24) and 30-day mortality (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04-1.31) during the pandemic period. INTERPRETATION: The pandemic period was associated with increased arrival to the emergency department via ambulance across all study diagnoses. Although patients with renal failure had increased hospital admission and death, and patients with ectopic pregnancy had an increased risk of surgery, there were no differences in outcomes for other populations, suggesting the health care system was able to care for these patients effectively.

Pharmacological Management of Agitation and Delirium in Older Adults: a Survey of Practices in Canadian Emergency Departments.

Agitation is a common presenting symptom of delirium for older adults in the emergency department (ED). No medications have been found to reduce delirium severity, symptoms, or mortality, yet they may cause harm. Guidelines suggest using medications only when patients are posing a risk of harm, situations which may arise frequently in the ED. We sought to characterize prescribing patterns of medications for agitation by ED physicians in Canadian hospitals. In this multicenter study, we surveyed physicians in Vancouver, Toronto, and Sherbrooke. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize group characteristics and starting doses were compared to order sets. Fisher exact tests were used for demographic comparison. Ordinal linear regression models were run to identify a relationship between starting dose of medications and location. Of the 137 physicians invited, 77 (56%) completed the survey. Use of order sets was greatest in Sherbrooke and least in Vancouver. The most common medications used across sites were haloperidol, lorazepam, and quetiapine. Benzodiazepines were used across all sites but were used significantly more frequently in Vancouver than the other sites. Practice location was a significant predictor of starting dose of haloperidol, with Sherbrooke and Toronto having a lower starting dose than Vancouver. Higher use of order sets correlated with lower and more consistent starting doses. Benzodiazepines are used across EDs in Canada despite little evidence for efficacy in delirium and risk of harm. Implementation of order sets may be a useful way to standardize ED management of older adults experiencing hyperactive delirium.

"It saved me from the emergency department": A qualitative study of patient experience of virtual urgent care in Ontario.

INTRODUCTION: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ontario Ministry of Health introduced a pilot program of 14 virtual urgent care (VUC) initiatives across the province to encourage physical distancing and provision of care by telephone and video-enabled visits. The implementation of the VUC pilot is currently being evaluated by an external academic team. The objective of this study was to understand patient experiences with VUC to determine barriers and facilitators to optimal virtual care as it rapidly expands during the current pandemic and beyond. METHOD: The qualitative component of the evaluation used one-on-one telephone interviews with patients, families, providers, and program administrators as the main method of data collection. Patient and family participants were invited to participate by the triage nurse after their VUC visit. Data analysis, using thematic analysis, occurred in conjunction with data collection to monitor emerging themes and areas for further exploration. RESULTS: Between April and October 2021, we completed 14 patient and/or family interviews from a representative cross-section of 6 pilot sites. Participants had a range of presenting complaints including infection, injury, medication side effects, and abdominal pain. The vast majority of participants were female (90%), and 70% were VUC patients themselves. Our analysis identified three key themes in the data which characterise patient and family member experience with VUC: a) emphasis on access to the ED; b) efficiency and quality of care; c) obtaining reassurance and next steps. CONCLUSION: Virtual care options are valued by patients and families; however, the nature of care needed by those accessing VUC and who can best provide that care needs to be evaluated to position it for sustainability. Understanding how virtual care performs from both a provider and patient perspective during the current crisis has implications for designing alternative care options beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Characterizing Risk Factors for Hospitalization and Clinical Characteristics in a Cohort of COVID-19 Patients Enrolled in the GENCOV Study.

The GENCOV study aims to identify patient factors which affect COVID-19 severity and outcomes. Here, we aimed to evaluate patient characteristics, acute symptoms and their persistence, and associations with hospitalization. Participants were recruited at hospital sites across the Greater Toronto Area in Ontario, Canada. Patient-reported demographics, medical history, and COVID-19 symptoms and complications were collected through an intake survey. Regression analyses were performed to identify associations with outcomes including hospitalization and COVID-19 symptoms. In total, 966 responses were obtained from 1106 eligible participants (87% response rate) between November 2020 and May 2022. Increasing continuous age (aOR: 1.05 [95%CI: 1.01-1.08]) and BMI (aOR: 1.17 [95%CI: 1.10-1.24]), non-White/European ethnicity (aOR: 2.72 [95%CI: 1.22-6.05]), hypertension (aOR: 2.78 [95%CI: 1.22-6.34]), and infection by viral variants (aOR: 5.43 [95%CI: 1.45-20.34]) were identified as risk factors for hospitalization. Several symptoms including shortness of breath and fever were found to be more common among inpatients and tended to persist for longer durations following acute illness. Sex, age, ethnicity, BMI, vaccination status, viral strain, and underlying health conditions were associated with developing and having persistent symptoms. By improving our understanding of risk factors for severe COVID-19, our findings may guide COVID-19 patient management strategies by enabling more efficient clinical decision making.

Public knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 serological and viral lineage laboratory testing and result interpretation: A GENCOV study cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: Concepts related to SARS-CoV-2 laboratory testing and result interpretation can be challenging to understand. A cross-sectional survey of COVID-19 positive adults residing in Ontario, Canada was conducted to explore how well people understand SARS-CoV-2 laboratory tests and their associated results. DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants were recruited through fliers or by prospective recruitment of outpatients and hospitalized inpatients with COVID-19. Enrolled participants included consenting adults with a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test result. An 11-item questionnaire was developed by researchers, nurses, and physicians in the study team and was administered online between April 2021 to May 2022 upon enrolment into the study. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 940 of 1106 eligible participants (85% participation rate). Most respondents understood 1) that antibody results should not influence adherence to social distancing measures (n = 602/888, 68%), 2) asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection following test positivity (n = 698/888, 79%), 3) serological test sensitivity in relation to post-infection timeline (n = 540/891, 61%), and 4) limitations of experts' knowledge related to SARS-CoV-2 serology (n = 693/887, 78%). Conversely, respondents demonstrated challenges understanding 1) conflicting molecular and serological test results and their relationship with immune protection (n = 162/893, 18%) and 2) the impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants on vaccine effectiveness (n = 235/891, 26%). Analysis of responses stratified by sociodemographic variables identified that respondents who were either: 1) female, 2) more educated, 3) aged 18-44, 4) from a high-income household, or 5) healthcare workers responded expectedly more often. CONCLUSIONS: We have highlighted concepts related to SARS-CoV-2 laboratory tests and associated results which may be challenging to understand. The findings of this study enable us to identify 1) misconceptions related to various SARS-CoV-2 test results, 2) groups of individuals at risk, and 3) strategies to improve people's understanding of their test results.

Epinephrine in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Network Meta-analysis and Subgroup Analyses of Shockable and Nonshockable Rhythms.

BACKGROUND: Epinephrine is the most commonly used drug in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitation, but evidence supporting its efficacy is mixed. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the comparative efficacy and safety of standard dose epinephrine, high-dose epinephrine, epinephrine plus vasopressin, and placebo or no treatment in improving outcomes after OHCA? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, we searched six databases from inception through June 2022 for randomized controlled trials evaluating epinephrine use during OHCA resuscitation. We performed frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and present ORs and 95% CIs. We used the the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to rate the certainty of evidence. Outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission, survival to discharge, and survival with good functional outcome. RESULTS: We included 18 trials (21,594 patients). Compared with placebo or no treatment, high-dose epinephrine (OR, 4.27; 95% CI, 3.68-4.97), standard-dose epinephrine (OR, 3.69; 95% CI, 3.32-4.10), and epinephrine plus vasopressin (OR, 3.54; 95% CI, 2.94-4.26) all increased ROSC. High-dose epinephrine (OR, 3.53; 95% CI, 2.97-4.20), standard-dose epinephrine (OR, 3.00; 95% CI, 2.66-3.38), and epinephrine plus vasopressin (OR, 2.79; 95% CI, 2.27-3.44) all increased survival to hospital admission as compared with placebo or no treatment. However, none of these agents may increase survival to discharge or survival with good functional outcome as compared with placebo or no treatment. Compared with placebo or no treatment, standard-dose epinephrine improved survival to discharge among patients with nonshockable rhythm (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.21-3.63), but not in those with shockable rhythm (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.39-1.85). INTERPRETATION: Use of standard-dose epinephrine, high-dose epinephrine, and epinephrine plus vasopressin increases ROSC and survival to hospital admission, but may not improve survival to discharge or functional outcome. Standard-dose epinephrine improved survival to discharge among patients with nonshockable rhythm, but not those with shockable rhythm. TRIAL REGISTRY: Center for Open Science: https://osf.io/arxwq.

Patient outcomes associated with cancer diagnosis through the emergency department: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Many patients are initially diagnosed with a new suspected cancer through the emergency department (ED). The objective of this systematic review was to compare stage of cancer and survival of patients diagnosed with cancer through the ED to patients diagnosed elsewhere. METHODS: Electronic searches of Medline and EMBASE were conducted and reference lists were hand-searched. Studies comparing adult patients diagnosed with any type of cancer through the ED (ED diagnosis) to patients diagnosed elsewhere (non-ED diagnosis) were included. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed quality of the studies, and extracted data. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data pertaining to patient outcomes were summarized and pooled using random-effects models and reported as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), where applicable. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included. There was an increased risk of more advanced/later stage cancer (Stage III/IV or late-stage vs. earlier stage) among patients with an ED diagnosis of cancer compared to a non-ED diagnosis of cancer (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.39-1.58). Survival was lower for patients with an ED diagnosis of cancer compared to those diagnosed elsewhere (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.49-0.75). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with an ED diagnosis of cancer had more advanced/late stage of cancer at diagnosis and worse survival compared to patients diagnosed elsewhere. Future research examining patients diagnosed with cancer through the ED is required.

Genome screening, reporting, and genetic counseling for healthy populations.

Rapid advancements of genome sequencing (GS) technologies have enhanced our understanding of the relationship between genes and human disease. To incorporate genomic information into the practice of medicine, new processes for the analysis, reporting, and communication of GS data are needed. Blood samples were collected from adults with a PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) diagnosis (target N = 1500). GS was performed. Data were filtered and analyzed using custom pipelines and gene panels. We developed unique patient-facing materials, including an online intake survey, group counseling presentation, and consultation letters in addition to a comprehensive GS report. The final report includes results generated from GS data: (1) monogenic disease risks; (2) carrier status; (3) pharmacogenomic variants; (4) polygenic risk scores for common conditions; (5) HLA genotype; (6) genetic ancestry; (7) blood group; and, (8) COVID-19 viral lineage. Participants complete pre-test genetic counseling and confirm preferences for secondary findings before receiving results. Counseling and referrals are initiated for clinically significant findings. We developed a genetic counseling, reporting, and return of results framework that integrates GS information across multiple areas of human health, presenting possibilities for the clinical application of comprehensive GS data in healthy individuals.

Demographic characteristics, outcomes and experience of patients using virtual urgent care services from 14 emergency department led sites in Ontario.

INTRODUCTION: As part of the COVID-19 pandemic response, the Ontario Ministry of Health funded a virtual care pilot program intended to support emergency department (ED) diversion of patients with low acuity complaints and reduce the need for face-to-face contact. The objective was to describe the demographic characteristics, outcomes and experience of patients using the provincial pilot program. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of patients using virtual care services provided by 14 ED-led pilot sites from December 2020 to September 2021. Patients who completed a virtual visit were invited by email to complete a standardized, 25-item online survey, which included questions related to satisfaction and patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS: There were 22,278 virtual visits. When patients were asked why they contacted virtual urgent care, of the 82.7% patients who had a primary care provider, 31.0% said they could not make a timely appointment with their family physician. Rash, fever, abdominal pain, and COVID-19 vaccine queries represented 30% of the presenting complaints. Of 19,613 patients with a known disposition, 12,910 (65.8%) were discharged home and 3,179 (16.2%) were referred to the ED. Of the 2,177 survey responses, 94% rated their overall experience as 8/10 or greater. More than 80% said they had answers to all the questions they had related to their health concern, believed they were able to manage the issue, had a plan they could follow, and knew what to do if the issue got worse or came back. CONCLUSIONS: Many presenting complaints were low acuity, and most patients had a primary care provider, but timely access was not available. Future work should focus on health equity to ensure virtual care is accessible to underserved populations. We question if virtual urgent care can be safely and more economically provided by non-emergency physicians.

RéSUMé: INTRODUCTION: Dans le cadre de la réponse à la pandémie de COVID-19, le ministère de la Santé de l'Ontario a financé un programme pilote de soins virtuels visant à soutenir la réorientation vers les services d'urgence des patients présentant des problèmes de faible acuité et à réduire le besoin de contact en personne. L'objectif était de décrire les caractéristiques démographiques, les résultats et l'expérience des patients utilisant le programme pilote provincial. MéTHODES: Il s'agissait d'une étude de cohorte prospective de patients utilisant des services de soins virtuels fournis par 14 sites pilotes dirigés par des services d'urgence, de décembre 2020 à septembre 2021. Les patients qui ont effectué une visite virtuelle ont été invités par courriel à répondre à une enquête en ligne standardisée de 25 questions, qui comprenait des questions relatives à la satisfaction et aux résultats rapportés par les patients. RéSULTATS: Il y a eu 22 278 visites virtuelles. Lorsqu'on a demandé aux patients pourquoi ils avaient contacté les soins urgents virtuels, sur les 82,7 % de patients qui avaient un prestataire de soins primaires, 31,0 % ont répondu qu'ils n'avaient pas pu obtenir un rendez-vous en temps voulu avec leur médecin de famille. Les éruptions cutanées, la fièvre, les douleurs abdominales et les interrogations sur le vaccin COVID-19 représentaient 30 % des plaintes présentées. Sur les 19 613 patients dont la disposition était connue, 12 910 (65,8 %) ont été renvoyés chez eux et 3 179 (16,2 %) ont été orientés vers les urgences. Sur les 2 177 réponses à l'enquête, 94 % ont attribué une note de 8/10 ou plus à leur expérience globale. Plus de 80 % d'entre eux ont déclaré avoir obtenu des réponses à toutes les questions qu'ils se posaient sur leur problème de santé, se croire capables de le gérer, avoir un plan qu'ils pouvaient suivre et savoir quoi faire si le problème s'aggravait ou revenait. CONCLUSIONS: De nombreuses plaintes présentées étaient de faible acuité, et la plupart des patients avaient un fournisseur de soins primaires, mais l'accès en temps opportun n'était pas disponible. Les travaux futurs devraient se concentrer sur l'équité en matière de santé pour s'assurer que les soins virtuels sont accessibles aux populations mal desservies et nous nous demandons si ces services peuvent être fournis en toute sécurité et de manière plus économique par des médecins non urgentistes.

Defibrillation Strategies for Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in defibrillation technology, shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation remains common during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Double sequential external defibrillation (DSED; rapid sequential shocks from two defibrillators) and vector-change (VC) defibrillation (switching defibrillation pads to an anterior-posterior position) have been proposed as defibrillation strategies to improve outcomes in patients with refractory ventricular fibrillation. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized trial with crossover among six Canadian paramedic services to evaluate DSED and VC defibrillation as compared with standard defibrillation in adult patients with refractory ventricular fibrillation during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Patients were treated with one of these three techniques according to the strategy that was randomly assigned to the paramedic service. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included termination of ventricular fibrillation, return of spontaneous circulation, and a good neurologic outcome, defined as a modified Rankin scale score of 2 or lower (indicating no symptoms to slight disability) at hospital discharge. RESULTS: A total of 405 patients were enrolled before the data and safety monitoring board stopped the trial because of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. A total of 136 patients (33.6%) were assigned to receive standard defibrillation, 144 (35.6%) to receive VC defibrillation, and 125 (30.9%) to receive DSED. Survival to hospital discharge was more common in the DSED group than in the standard group (30.4% vs. 13.3%; relative risk, 2.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33 to 3.67) and more common in the VC group than in the standard group (21.7% vs. 13.3%; relative risk, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.88). DSED but not VC defibrillation was associated with a higher percentage of patients having a good neurologic outcome than standard defibrillation (relative risk, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.26 to 3.88] and 1.48 [95% CI, 0.81 to 2.71], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with refractory ventricular fibrillation, survival to hospital discharge occurred more frequently among those who received DSED or VC defibrillation than among those who received standard defibrillation. (Funded by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada; DOSE VF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04080986.).

Delayed intracranial hemorrhage after head injury among elderly patients on anticoagulation seen in the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: Elderly patients on oral anticoagulation are commonly seen in emergency departments (EDs). Oral anticoagulation, particularly warfarin, is associated with an increased risk of intracranial hemorrhage after head trauma. Data on delayed bleeds in anticoagulated patients are limited. The objective of this study was to examine risk of delayed intracranial hemorrhage in patients presenting to the ED with a head injury anticoagulated with warfarin or a direct oral anticoagulant, compared to patients not anticoagulated. METHODS: Cohort study using administrative data from Ontario of patients ≥ 65 years presenting to the ED with a complaint of head injury between 2016 and 2018. The primary outcome was delayed intracranial hemorrhage, defined as a new ICD-10 code for intracranial hemorrhage within 90 days of the initial ED visit for a head injury where no intracranial hemorrhage was diagnosed. The main exposure variable was oral anticoagulation use, which was a three-level variable (warfarin, direct oral anticoagulants, or no oral anticoagulation). We used multivariable logistic regression to determine the odds of delayed intracranial hemorrhage based on anticoagulation status. RESULTS: 69,321 patients were included: 58,233 (84.0%) had not been prescribed oral anticoagulation, 3081 (4.4%) had a warfarin prescription, and 8007 (11.6%) had a direct oral anticoagulant prescription. Overall, 718 (1.0%) patients had a delayed intracranial hemorrhage within 90 days of ED visit for head injury. Among patients not anticoagulated, 586 (1.0%) had a delayed intracranial hemorrhage, 54 (1.8%) patients on warfarin, and 78 (1.0%) patients on a direct oral anticoagulant had a delayed intracranial hemorrhage. There was an increased odds of delayed intracranial hemorrhage with warfarin use compared with no anticoagulation (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.1). There was no association between delayed intracranial hemorrhage and direct oral anticoagulant use compared to no anticoagulation (OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.6-1.1). CONCLUSIONS: There was an increased odds of delayed intracranial hemorrhage within 90 days in older ED head injured patients prescribed warfarin compared to patients not on anticoagulation. direct oral anticoagulant use was not associated with increased risk of delayed intracranial hemorrhage.

RéSUMé: INTRODUCTION: Les patients âgés sous anticoagulation orale sont fréquemment accueillis dans les services d'urgence. L'anticoagulation orale, en particulier la warfarine, est associée à un risque accru d'hémorragie intracrânienne après un traumatisme crânien. Les données sur les saignements retardés chez les patients anticoagulés sont limitées. L'objectif de cette étude était d'examiner le risque d'hémorragie intracrânienne tardive chez les patients se présentant aux urgences avec un traumatisme crânien et anticoagulés avec de la warfarine ou un anticoagulant oral direct, par rapport aux patients non anticoagulés. MéTHODES: Étude de cohorte utilisant les données administratives de l'Ontario des patients ≥ 65 ans se présentant aux urgences avec une plainte de traumatisme crânien entre 2016 et 2018. L'issue primaire était l'hémorragie intracrânienne tardive, définie comme un nouveau code CIM-10 pour une hémorragie intracrânienne dans les 90 jours suivant la visite initiale aux urgences où aucune hémorragie intracrânienne n'a été diagnostiquée. La principale variable d'exposition était le recours à l'anticoagulation orale, qui était une variable à trois niveaux (warfarine, anticoagulants oraux directs ou pas d'anticoagulation orale). Nous avons utilisé une régression logistique multivariable pour déterminer les chances d'hémorragie intracrânienne tardive en fonction du statut d'anticoagulation. RéSULTATS: 69 321 patients ont été inclus : 58 233 (84,0 %) n'avaient pas reçu de prescription d'anticoagulant oral, 3 081 (4,4 %) avaient une prescription de warfarine et 8 007 (11,6 %) avaient une prescription directe d'anticoagulant oral. Dans l'ensemble, 718 (1,0 %) patients ont présenté une hémorragie intracrânienne tardive dans les 90 jours suivant leur visite aux urgences pour un traumatisme crânien. Parmi les patients non anticoagulés, 586 (1,0 %) ont eu une hémorragie intracrânienne retardée, 54 (1,8 %) patients sous warfarine et 78 (1,0 %) patients sous anticoagulant oral direct ont eu une hémorragie intracrânienne retardée. Le risque d'hémorragie intracrânienne tardive était plus élevé avec l'utilisation de la warfarine qu'en l'absence d'anticoagulation (OR : 1,5, IC 95 % : 1,1-2,1). Il n'y avait pas d'association entre l'hémorragie intracrânienne tardive et l'utilisation d'anticoagulants oraux directs par rapport à l'absence d'anticoagulation (OR : 0,9, IC 95 % : 0,6-1,1). CONCLUSIONS: Il y avait une probabilité accrue d'hémorragie intracrânienne retardée dans les 90 jours chez les patients plus âgés victimes d'un traumatisme crânien aux urgences à qui l'on avait prescrit de la warfarine que chez les patients qui n'étaient pas sous anticoagulation. L'utilisation d'anticoagulants oraux directs n'était pas associée à un risque accru d'hémorragie intracrânienne tardive.

Understanding why delirium is often missed in older emergency department patients: a qualitative descriptive study.

OBJECTIVES: Unrecognized delirium is associated with significant adverse outcomes. Despite decades of effort and educational initiatives, validated screening tools have not improved delirium recognition in the emergency department (ED). There remains a fundamental knowledge gap of why it is consistently missed. The objective of this study was to explore the perceptions of ED physicians and nurses regarding factors contributing to missed delirium in older ED patients. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study at two academic tertiary care EDs in Toronto, Canada. Emergency physicians and nurses were interviewed by a trained qualitative researcher using a semi-structured interview guide. We coded transcripts with an iteratively developed codebook. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation occurred. Thematic data analysis occurred in conjunction with data collection to continuously monitor emerging themes and areas for further exploration. RESULTS: We interviewed 26 ED physicians and nurses. We identified key themes at four levels: clinical practice, provider attitudes, systematic processes, and education. The four themes include: (1) there are varied approaches to delirium recognition and infrequent use of screening tools; (2) delirium assessment is perceived as overly time consuming and of lower priority than other symptoms and syndromes; (3) it is unclear whose responsibility it is to recognize delirium; and (4) there is a need for a deeper or "functional" understanding of delirium that includes its consequences. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate a need for ED leadership to identify clear team roles for delirium recognition, standardize use of delirium screening tools, and prioritize delirium as a symptom of an acute medical emergency.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: Le délire non reconnu est associé à des résultats négatifs importants. Malgré des décennies d'efforts et d'initiatives éducatives, les outils de dépistage validés n'ont pas amélioré la reconnaissance du délire au service des urgences (SU). Il reste une lacune fondamentale dans la connaissance des raisons pour lesquelles elle est systématiquement manquée. L'objectif de cette étude était d'explorer les perceptions des médecins et des infirmières de l'urgence au sujet des facteurs contribuant au délire manqué chez les patients âgés des urgences. MéTHODES: Nous avons mené une étude qualitative descriptive dans deux urgences universitaires de soins tertiaires à Toronto, au Canada. Les médecins et les infirmières des urgences ont été interrogés par un chercheur qualitatif formé à l'aide d'un guide d'entretien semi-structuré. Nous avons codé les transcriptions à l'aide d'un livre de codes développé de manière itérative. Les entretiens ont été menés jusqu'à saturation thématique. L'analyse thématique des données s'est déroulée conjointement avec la collecte des données afin de surveiller continuellement les thèmes émergents et les domaines à explorer davantage. RéSULTATS: Nous avons interrogé 26 médecins et infirmières des urgences. Nous avons identifié des thèmes clés à quatre niveaux : la pratique clinique, les attitudes des prestataires, les processus systématiques et l'éducation. Les quatre thèmes abordés sont les suivants : 1) les approches de la reconnaissance du délire sont variées et les outils de dépistage peu utilisés ; 2) l'évaluation du délire est perçue comme prenant trop de temps et moins prioritaire que d'autres symptômes et syndromes ; 3) il n'est pas clair à qui revient la responsabilité de reconnaître le délire ; et 4) il est nécessaire d'avoir une compréhension plus profonde ou "fonctionnelle" du délire, qui inclut ses conséquences. CONCLUSIONS: Nos résultats démontrent la nécessité pour les responsables des urgences de définir clairement les rôles de l'équipe pour la reconnaissance du delirium, de normaliser l'utilisation des outils de dépistage du delirium et d'accorder la priorité au delirium en tant que symptôme d'une urgence médicale aiguë.

Designs, facilitators, barriers, and lessons learned during the implementation of emergency department led virtual urgent care programs in Ontario, Canada.

Introduction: Virtual patient care has seen incredible growth since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. To provide greater access to safe and timely urgent care, in the fall of 2020, the Ministry of Health introduced a pilot program of 14 virtual urgent care (VUC) initiatives across the province of Ontario. The objective of this paper was to describe the overall design, facilitators, barriers, and lessons learned during the implementation of seven emergency department (ED) led VUC pilot programs in Ontario, Canada. Methods: We assembled an expert panel of 13 emergency medicine physicians and researchers with experience leading and implementing local VUC programs. Each VUC program lead was asked to describe their local pilot program, share common facilitators and barriers to adoption of VUC services, and summarize lessons learned for future VUC design and development. Results: Models of care interventions varied across VUC pilot programs related to triage, staffing, technology, and physician remuneration. Common facilitators included local champions to guide program delivery, provincial funding support, and multi-modal marketing and promotions. Common barriers included behaviour change strategies to support adoption of a new service, access to high-quality information technology to support new workflow models that consider privacy, risk, and legal perspectives, and standardized data collection which underpin overall objective impact assessments. Conclusions: These pilot programs were rapidly implemented to support safe access to care and ED diversion of patients with low acuity issues during the COVID-19 pandemic. The heterogeneity of program implementation respects local autonomy yet may present challenges for sustainability efforts and future funding considerations.

Antibiotic prescribing and outcomes for patients with uncomplicated purulent skin and soft tissue infections in the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: Current guidelines suggest adjuvant antibiotics after incision and drainage (I&D) of small, uncomplicated abscesses may improve patient outcomes, minimize pain, and prevent recurrence. The objective was to explore antibiotic prescribing at ED discharge and describe patient outcomes. METHODS: This was a health records review of adult patients (≥ 18 years) discharged from an academic hospital ED (annual census 65,000) over a 2-year period with diagnosis of an uncomplicated skin abscess. Outcomes included any unplanned return ED visits within 30 days, repeat I&D, and escalation to intravenous (IV) antibiotics. RESULTS: Of 389 ED visits, 85.6% patients underwent I&D, of which 62.2% were prescribed antibiotics at discharge. Of these patients, 36.7% received guideline recommended antibiotics (TMP-SMX or clindamycin). Of all patients who underwent I&D, 13.2% had an unplanned return ED visit within 30 days, 6.9% required repeat I&D, and 0.6% patients were escalated to IV antibiotics. Patients treated with cefalexin were more likely to have an unplanned return ED visit within 30 days (20.0 vs 5.3%; Δ14.7, 95% CI 4.6-24.4), and were more likely to have a repeat I&D within 30 days (13.7 vs 0%; Δ13.7, 95% CI 6.4-22.0), compared to patients prescribed guideline recommended antibiotics. Treatment with guideline recommended antibiotics reduced treatment failure significantly in MRSA positive patients (0.0 vs 44.4%; Δ44.4, 95% CI 13.4-73.3). CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotics were prescribed for most abscesses that underwent I&D. Less than half of the patients received antibiotics that were guideline recommended. Compared to those who received cefalexin, patients prescribed TMP-SMX or clindamycin had fewer return ED visits and were less likely to have a repeat I&D within 30 days. However, adjuvant antibiotic use did not significantly improve outcomes overall, with most patients not requiring a change in management irrespective of antibiotic use.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: Les lignes directrices actuelles suggèrent que les adjuvants aux antibiotiques après l'incision et le drainage (I&D) des petits abcès simples peuvent améliorer les résultats pour les patients, réduire la douleur et prévenir la récidive. L'objectif était d'explorer la prescription d'antibiotiques à la sortie des urgences et de décrire les résultats pour les patients. MéTHODES: Il s'agissait d'une étude des dossiers médicaux des patients adultes (≥ 18 ans) sortis des urgences d'un hôpital universitaire (recensement annuel 65 000) sur une période de deux ans avec un diagnostic d'abcès cutané non compliqué. Les résultats comprenaient toutes les visites de retour non planifiées aux urgences dans les 30 jours, la répétition de l'I&D et l'escalade vers des antibiotiques intraveineux (IV). RéSULTATS: Sur 389 visites aux urgences, 85,6 % des patients ont subi une I&D, dont 62,2 % se sont vu prescrire des antibiotiques à la sortie. Parmi ces patients, 36,7 % ont reçu les antibiotiques recommandés par les directives (TMP-SMX ou clindamycine). Sur l'ensemble des patients ayant subi une I&D, 13,2 % ont eu une visite non planifiée aux urgences dans les 30 jours, 6,9 % ont dû subir une nouvelle I&D et 0,6 % des patients ont eu recours à une antibiothérapie IV. Les patients traités par la céfalexine étaient plus susceptibles d'avoir une visite de retour imprévue à l'urgence dans les 30 jours 20,0 % vs 5,3 % ; Δ14,7, IC 95 % : 4,6 à 24,4), et étaient plus susceptibles d'avoir une I&D répétée dans les 30 jours (13,7 % vs 0 % ; Δ13,7, IC 95 % : 6,4 à 22,0), par rapport aux patients auxquels on a prescrit des antibiotiques recommandés par les lignes directrices. Le traitement avec les antibiotiques recommandés par les lignes directrices a réduit de manière significative l'échec thérapeutique chez les patients positifs au SARM (0,0 % vs 44,4 % ; Δ44,4, IC 95 % : 13,4 à 73,3). CONCLUSIONS: Des antibiotiques ont été prescrits pour la plupart des abcès ayant fait l'objet d'une I&D. Moins de la moitié des patients ont reçu des antibiotiques recommandés par les lignes directrices. Par rapport à ceux qui ont reçu de la céfalexine, les patients à qui l'on a prescrit du TMP-SMX ou de la clindamycine ont eu moins de visites de retour aux urgences et étaient moins susceptibles de subir une nouvelle I&D dans les 30 jours. Toutefois, l'utilisation des adjuvants aux antibiotiques n'a pas amélioré de façon significative les résultats dans l'ensemble, la plupart des patients n'ayant pas besoin d'un changement de prise en charge, quelle que soit l'utilisation d'antibiotiques.

Risk of intracranial hemorrhage between different direct oral anticoagulants in older patients seen in the emergency department with a head injury: A population-based cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly managed in emergency departments (ED). It is unknown whether the risk of traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) after a head injury differs between DOACs. The objective of this study was to compare risk of ICH at the index ED visit among older adults presenting to the ED with a head injury prescribed different DOACs. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using population-based administrative databases from Ontario, Canada between 2016 and 2018 of patients age 65 years and older prescribed DOACs who were seen in the ED with a head injury. Patients were matched on the propensity score to create three pairwise-matched cohorts based on the DOAC prescribed (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban; dabigatran vs apixaban; rivaroxaban vs apixaban). For each cohort, relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of ICH diagnosed at the index ED visit were calculated. RESULTS: We identified 9230 older adults presenting with a head injury prescribed a DOAC. There were 1274 (13.8%) patients with a prescription for dabigatran, 3136 (34.0%) patients with a prescription for rivaroxaban, and 4820 (52.2%) patients with a prescription for apixaban. Overall, 5.9% of patients had an ICH at the index ED visit. After matching, there were no significant differences in the risk of ICH between any matched DOAC cohorts. CONCLUSION: In patients aged 65 years and older with a prescription for a DOAC seen in the ED for a head injury, there were no differences in the risk of ICH between DOACs.