Medical student self-assessment as emergency medicine residency applicants.

BACKGROUND: Emergency medicine (EM) applicants are encouraged to consider their own "competitiveness" when deciding on the number of applications to submit. Program directors rank the Standardized Letter of Evaluation (SLOE) as the most important factor when reviewing an applicant. Accurate insight into how clinical performance is reflected on the SLOE could improve medical students' ability to gauge their own competitiveness. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the accuracy of students' self-assessment by SLOE evaluation measures when compared to the SLOE completed by faculty after their EM clerkship. METHODS: Participants of this multicenter study included fourth-year medical students who had completed their EM clerkship and were applying to EM residency. Students completed a modified SLOE to reflect rankings they believed they would receive on their official SLOE. Additionally, students completed a survey assessing their knowledge of the SLOE, their perception of feedback during the clerkship, and their self-perceived competitiveness as an EM applicant. Correlation between the rankings on the student-completed SLOE and the official SLOE was analyzed using the Kendall correlation. RESULTS: Of the 49 eligible students, 42 (85.7%) completed the study. The correlation between scores on the student-completed and official SLOE were significantly low (r < 0.68) for each item. The majority of students agreed that they were satisfied by the quantity and quality of feedback they received (31/42, 73.8%). Few students agreed that they knew how many applications to submit to ensure a match in EM (7/42, 16.7%). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that students did not accurately predict their rankings on the official SLOE at the end of an EM rotation and had little insight into their competitiveness as an applicant. These findings highlight opportunities to mitigate the burden on students and programs caused by the increasing number of applications per applicant. Further research is needed as to whether strategies to increase insight into competitiveness are effective.

Emergency Department Crowding is Associated with Reduced Satisfaction Scores in Patients Discharged from the Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency department (ED) crowding has been shown to negatively impact patient outcomes. Few studies have addressed the effect of ED crowding on patient satisfaction. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of ED crowding on patient satisfaction in patients discharged from the ED. METHODS: We measured patient satisfaction using Press-Ganey surveys returned by patients that visited our ED between August 1, 2007 and March 31, 2008. We recorded all mean satisfaction scores and obtained mean ED occupancy rate, mean emergency department work index (EDWIN) score and hospital diversion status over each 8-hour shift from data archived in our electronic tracking board. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was calculated to determine the effect of ED crowding and hospital diversion status on the odds of achieving a mean satisfaction score ≥ 85, which was the patient satisfaction goal set forth by our ED administration. RESULTS: A total of 1591 surveys were returned over the study period. Mean satisfaction score was 77.6 (standard deviation [SD] ±16) and mean occupancy rate was 1.23 (SD ± 0.31). The likelihood of failure to meet patient satisfaction goals was associated with an increase in average ED occupancy rate (odds ratio [OR] 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17 to 0.59, P < 0.001) and an increase in EDWIN score (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.004 to 0.55, P = 0.015). Hospital diversion resulted in lower mean satisfaction scores, but this was not statistically significant (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.05). In multivariable analysis controlling for hospital diversion status and time of shift, ED occupancy rate remained a significant predictor of failure to meet patient satisfaction goals (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.66, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Increased crowding, as measured by ED occupancy rate and EDWIN score, was significantly associated with reduced patient satisfaction. Although causative attribution was limited, our study suggested yet another negative impact resulting from ED crowding.

A comparison of the effects of etomidate and midazolam on hospital length of stay in patients with suspected sepsis: a prospective, randomized study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Etomidate, a widely used induction agent for rapid sequence intubation in the emergency department (ED), causes measurable adrenal suppression after a single bolus dose. The clinical significance of this adrenal suppression in patients with sepsis remains controversial. We seek to determine the difference in hospital length of stay between patients with suspected sepsis who receive either etomidate or midazolam during intubation in our ED. METHODS: We performed a prospective, double-blind, randomized study of patients with suspected sepsis who were intubated in our ED during an 18-month period. Eligible patients who were critically ill and were suspected of having sepsis were randomized to receive either etomidate or midazolam before intubation. RESULTS: A total of 122 patients were enrolled; 59 received midazolam and 63 received etomidate. Two patients in the etomidate group were lost to follow-up. Patient baseline characteristics were similar between groups. There were no significant differences in median hospital length of stay (9.5 versus 7.3 days), ICU length of stay (4.2 versus 3.1 days), or ventilator days (2.8 versus 2.1) between patients who received midazolam and those who received etomidate, respectively. Inhospital mortality was 21 of 59 (36%; 95% confidence interval 24% to 49%) for patients who received midazolam and 26 of 61 (43%; 95% confidence interval 30% to 56%) for patients who received etomidate. For patients who survived to hospital discharge, the median length of stay was 11.3 days in the midazolam group versus 11.8 days in the etomidate group; for patients who died, the median length of stay was 2.9 days in the midazolam group versus 3.3 days in the etomidate group. CONCLUSION: Patients with suspected sepsis and who received a single bolus dose of etomidate for rapid sequence intubation showed no significant increase in hospital length of stay compared with patients who received a single bolus dose of midazolam.

Etomidate as an induction agent in septic patients: red flags or false alarms?

Despite its widespread use in North America and many other parts of the world, the safety of etomidate as an induction agent for rapid sequence intubation in septic patients is still debated. In this article, we evaluate the current literature on etomidate, review its clinical history, and discuss the controversy regarding its use, especially in sepsis. We address eight questions: (i) When did concern over the safety of etomidate first arise? (ii) What is the mechanism by which etomidate is thought to affect the adrenal axis? (iii) How has adrenal insufficiency in relation to etomidate use been defined or identified in the literature? (iv) What is the evidence that single dose etomidate is associated with subsequent adrenal-cortisol dysfunction? (v) What is the clinical significance of adrenal insufficiency or dysfunction associated with single dose etomidate, and where are the data that support or refute the contention that single-dose etomidate is associated with increased mortality or important post emergency department (ED) clinical outcomes? (vi) How should etomidate's effects in septic patients best be measured? (vii) What are alternative induction agents and what are the advantages and disadvantages of these agents relative to etomidate? (viii) What future work is needed to further clarify the characteristics of etomidate as it is currently used in patients with sepsis? We conclude that the observational nature of almost all available data suggesting adverse outcomes from etomidate does not support abandoning its use for rapid sequence induction. However, because we see a need to balance theoretical harms and benefits in the presence of data supporting the non-inferiority of alternative agents without similar theoretical risks associated with them, we suggest that the burden of proof to support continued widespread use may rest with the proponents of etomidate. We further suggest that practitioners become familiar with the use of more than one agent while awaiting further definitive data.

The effect of alpha-blockade in emergency department patients with ureterolithiasis.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that alpha-blockade with tamsulosin may be useful in the treatment of ureterolithiasis by increasing the success of, and decreasing the time to, stone passage. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine stone passage success rates in patients diagnosed with ureterolithiasis and discharged from our Emergency Department (ED) with tamsulosin. METHODS: We conducted a non-randomized retrospective cohort study over a 1-year period during which we made monthly follow-up telephone calls to patients discharged from our ED with a diagnosis of ureterolithiasis determined by computed tomography (CT) scan. Stone size and location (proximal, middle, or distal ureter) were determined from radiologist reports and prescriptions were determined from electronic medical records. Patients were asked if they spontaneously passed their stone, how much time was required before stone passage, and if any subsequent hospital visit was required after discharge due to pain or complication resulting from the ureteral stone. RESULTS: During the study, a total of 213 patients were discharged from the ED with ureterolithiasis diagnosed by CT scan; of these, 119 (56%) were successfully contacted and 113 (53%) agreed to participate. Of the 113 patients, 83 (73%) had been prescribed tamsulosin and 30 (27%) had not. Overall age (43 years), gender (67% male), median stone size (3 mm, interquartile range 2-4 mm), and location (71% distal ureter) were similar in the two cohorts. Of tamsulosin recipients, 84% (95% confidence interval [CI] 75-91%) reported passing their stone, whereas 60% (95% CI 42-75%) of non-recipients passed their stone. CONCLUSION: Patients with ureterolithiasis discharged from our ED and given tamsulosin by prescription had moderately high ureteral stone passage success rates in our non-randomized retrospective cohort study. Compared to non-recipients of tamsulosin, patients receiving tamsulosin seemed to have greater success in stone passage.

Emergency physicians report infrequent use of alpha-blockade for the treatment of ureteral stones.

PURPOSES: We sought to determine how frequently tamsulosin is used by emergency physicians (EPs) for the treatment of patients with ureteral stones, and examine factors influencing its use. BASIC PROCEDURES: We distributed online and paper surveys to 240 EPs in five states in the United States. Surveys asked the length of time in practice, the type of hospital setting, and the self-reported frequency of tamsulosin use by quartile. FINDINGS: A total of 103 EPs (43%) responded to the survey. The majority (60%, 95% CI 51% to 69%) reported the use of tamsulosin in fewer than 25% of patients presenting with ureteral stones, and many (27%, 95% CI 20% to 36%) had not heard of the use of tamsulosin for urinary-stone passage. Practice in a county hospital was associated with infrequent tamsulosin use (p=.02). CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence that alpha-blockade may be beneficial to patients presenting to the emergency department with ureteral stones, this approach is still used inconsistently by EPs.

A prospective observational study of the effect of etomidate on septic patient mortality and length of stay.

OBJECTIVES: Etomidate is known to cause adrenal suppression after single-bolus administration. Some studies suggest that when etomidate is used as an induction agent for intubation of septic patients in the emergency department (ED), this adrenal suppression leads to increased mortality, vasopressor requirements, and length of hospital stay. The authors sought to determine differences in the in-hospital mortality and hospital length of stay (LOS) between septic patients given etomidate and patients given alternative or no induction agents for rapid-sequence intubation in our ED. METHODS: This was a nonrandomized, prospective observational study of all patients meeting sepsis criteria who were intubated in an ED over a 9-month period. Times of patient presentation, intubation, admission, discharge, and/or death were recorded, as well as the intubation agent used, if any, and corticosteroid use. The authors also recorded relevant laboratory and demographic variables to determine severity of illness using the Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis (MEDS) score. Mortality and survivor LOS between the patients given etomidate and those given alternative or no induction agents were compared. RESULTS: A total of 106 patients with sepsis were intubated over the study period. Of these, 74 patients received etomidate, while 32 patients received ketamine, benzodiazepines, propofol, or no induction agents. Age in years (median = 78; interquartile range [IQR] = 67 to 83), gender (45% male), MEDS score (median = 13; IQR = 10 to 15), and receipt of supplemental corticosteroids (56%) were statistically similar between the two groups. In-hospital mortality of patients given etomidate (38%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 28% to 49%) was similar to those receiving alternatives (44%; 95% CI = 28% to 61%). Surviving patients had a median hospital LOS after receiving etomidate of 10 days compared to those receiving alternatives (7.5 days; p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant increase in hospital LOS or mortality in patients given etomidate for rapid-sequence intubation was found. Suggestions that the use of etomidate for intubation in the ED be abandoned are not supported by these data.

The effect of single-bolus etomidate on septic patient mortality: a retrospective review.

BACKGROUND: Because of its many desirable properties, etomidate is widely used as an induction agent for endotracheal intubation. However, some have recently called into question the safety of etomidate for even single-bolus use due to its known effects on adrenal suppression. OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare the in-hospital mortality between septic patients given etomidate and those given alternative induction agents for intubation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of intubated septic patients treated in our hospital. We collected data from patients over the age of 18 with sepsis who were intubated in the pre-hospital setting, in our emergency department, or on the wards of our hospital, and calculated the in-hospital mortality of each group. RESULTS: We identified 181 patients with sepsis who were intubated over the study period; 135 received etomidate and 46 received alternative agents or no induction agent. Baseline characteristics, vital signs, and laboratory values were similar between the two groups. Of the 46 patients receiving alternative agents or no agent, 18 died, yielding an unadjusted mortality of 39.1% (95% CI 25.5% to 54.6%), while of the 135 patients receiving etomidate, 63 died, for an unadjusted mortality of 46.7% (95% CI 38.1% to 55.4%), P=0.38. CONCLUSION: We found a non-statistically significant 7.6% absolute increase in mortality in patients given etomidate in our small-sized study population.