Clinician assessment of blood alcohol levels among emergency department patients.

INTRODUCTION: Alcohol intoxication is a significant public health concern and is commonly seen among emergency department (ED) patients. This study was undertaken to identify the accuracy of clinician assessment of blood alcohol levels among emergency department patients. METHODS: This prospective survey study was conducted at a Level 1 Trauma Center. Eligible study participants included physicians, nurses, and medical students involved in the care of patients who had BAC. Clinicians estimated the BAC prior to results availability. RESULTS: Among 243 clinicians, the mean difference between the estimated BAC and actual BAC was 17.4 (95% CI: 4.7 to 30.1). Providers tended to overestimate the actual BAC level. The accuracy between roles (attendings, residents, RNs, students) was not significant (ANOVA p-value 0.90). Accuracy was not correlated with age of the patient (Pearson correlation 0.04, p-value 0.54). Accuracy was not associated with the patient's gender (Student's t-test two-tailed p-value 0.90), ethnicity (White versus all others, t-test p-value 0.31), nor insurance (government versus not government, t-test p-value 0.81). The average accuracy value was associated with mode of arrival (t-test p-value 0.003). The average accuracy for walk-in subjects was -14.9 (CI: -32.8 to 3.1) compared to ambulance arrivals 28.3 (CI: 12.7 to 44.0). Providers underestimated BAC for walk-ins and overestimated BAC for ambulance arrivals. Among 107 patients with a BAC of 0, clinician estimates ranged from 0 to 350. Clinicians estimated non-zero BAC levels in 17% of patients with BAC of 0 (N = 18). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians' estimates of BAC were often inaccurate, and often overestimated the BAC.

The effects of acute pain on cognitive skills in emergency department patients.

INTRODUCTION: Effective pain management results in improved patient satisfaction, reduced anxiety, and improved comfort. However, concern exists regarding the effects of pain medications on cognition and patient ability to consent for procedures, hospital admission, or to refuse recommended medical interventions. METHODS: This prospective, case-control study was conducted at a Level 1 Trauma Center. Eligible subjects included ED patients ages 18 and older with a triage pain score of 1 or higher, who received non-narcotic analgesic agents. Cognition was measured before and after non-narcotic pain medication using the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST). A control group consisted of 35 healthy volunteers who completed the DSST at baseline and one hour. RESULTS: Among 46 subjects, the mean age was 33. The mean triage pain score was 7. Before medication, the average DSST score was 39.5. After medication, the average DSST score was 42.9. There was a significant within-subject average change in DSST score (pre-post) of 3.4 (95% confidence interval: 1.6, 5.2), p < 0.001. Among the control group, the mean baseline DSST score was 64.2 (SD 10.7). One hour later the mean DSST score had increased to 71.1 (SD 10.4). Overall, the mean within-subject change over time in DSST was 6.9 (SD 8.0) with 95% CI 4.2 to 9.7. There was not enough evidence to detect relationships between change in DSST scores and age, triage pain, triage HR, triage RR, change in pain scores, gender, ethnicity, mode of arrival nor insurance (all with p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We found significant variation in DSST scores among ED patients with pain. Treatment of pain with nonsedating analgesic agents was not associated with improved scores on the Digit Symbol Substitution Test among ED patients with acute painful conditions, compared to control subjects.

Radiographic findings of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study was undertaken to identify and compare findings of chest radiography and computed tomography among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: This retrospective study was undertaken at a tertiary care center. Eligible subjects included consecutive patients age 18 and over with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection between March and July 2020. The primary outcome measures were results of chest radiography and computed tomography among patients with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Among 724 subjects, most were admitted to a medical floor (46.4%; N = 324) or admitted to an ICU (10.9%; N = 76). A substantial number of subjects were intubated during the emergency department visit or inpatient hospitalization (15.3%; N = 109). The majority of patients received a chest radiograph (80%; N = 579). The most common findings were normal, bilateral infiltrates, ground-glass opacities, or unilateral infiltrate. Among 128 patients who had both chest radiography and computed tomography, there was considerable disagreement between the 2 studies (52.3%; N = 67; 95% confidence interval: 43.7% to 61.0%).). The presence of bilateral infiltrates (infiltrates or ground-glass opacities) was associated with clinical factors including older age, ambulance arrivals, more urgent triage levels, higher heart rate, and lower oxygen saturation. Bilateral infiltrates were associated with poorer outcomes, including higher rate of intubation, greater number of inpatient days, and higher rate of death. CONCLUSIONS: Common radiographic findings of SARS-CoV-2 infection include infiltrates or ground-glass opacities. There was considerable disagreement between chest radiography and computed tomography. Computed tomography was more accurate in defining the extent of involved lung parenchyma. The presence of bilateral infiltrates was associated with morbidity and mortality.