Improving physician well-being and reducing burnout using a peer-to-peer recognition program.

Background: Drivers of physician burnout include an intricate interplay between health care organizational structures, societal influences, and individual-level factors. In the traditional workforce, peer-to-peer recognition programs (PRPs) have reduced burnout by building a sense of community and effectively creating a "wellness culture." We implemented a PRP in an emergency medicine (EM) residency and determined its impact on subjective symptoms of burnout and wellness. Methods: This was a prospective, pre- and postintervention study conducted in a single residency over a 6-month period. All 84 EM residents of the program were sent a voluntary anonymized survey that included a validated instrument on wellness and burnout. A PRP was initiated. After 6 months, a second survey was distributed. The outcome of the study was to examine whether the addition of a PRP reduced burnout and improved wellness. Results: There were 84 respondents to the pre-PRP survey and 72 to the post-PRP survey. Respondents reported an improvement after the inception of the use of the PRP in two factors that contribute to a physician's wellness: feeling recognized for accomplishments at work, which improved from 45% (38/84) affirmative to 63% (45/72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.3%-32.4%, p = 0.025) and a comfortable and supportive work environment, which improved from 68% (57/84) to 85% (61/72; 95% CI 3.5%-29.3%, p = 0.014). There was no significant effect in the Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index (PFI) as a result of this intervention over the 6 months. Conclusions: A PRP initiative resulted in improvements in several factors that drive physician wellness but overall burnout measured by the Stanford PFI did not show any improvement over the 6-month period. A future longitudinal study examining the continuous assessment of PRP on the EM residents throughout the entire course of 4 years of residency training would be beneficial to determine if it could change burnout from year to year.

Traumatic Injuries in Sexual Assault Patients in the Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: The emergency department (ED) is at the forefront for treatment of sexual assault patients. Many require treatment for injuries sustained during the assault, ranging from mild to severe. Our objective in this study was to characterize types of injuries associated with sexual assault and identify associated factors. METHODS: We reviewed ED charts from an inner-city trauma center and nearby community hospital from 2019-2020 for patients age ≥13 years with a chief complaint of sexual assault. We used descriptive statistics, chi square, and logistic regression to characterize demographics and identify factors associated with trauma. RESULTS: A total of 157 patients met inclusion criteria. The mean age was 27.9 years old (range 13-79 years) and 92.4% were female. Adult patients (age >18 years) comprised 77.5% of assaults vs adolescents (age 13-18 years) at 22.3%. Most patients presented to the trauma center compared to the community hospital (69.4% vs 30.6%). The assailants were reported as 61.2% acquaintance, 22.9% stranger, and 15.9% intimate partner. A forensic rape kit was performed in 92 (58.6%) cases. The patient was intoxicated with alcohol in 39 (24.8%) cases, and 22 (14%) patients reported drug-facilitated assault where an unknown substance was given to them. Alcohol (P = 0.95) and drug-facilitated assault (P = 0.64) did not change the occurrence of injuries. Fifty-seven (36.3%) patients exhibited physical trauma on presentation. Forty-five (28.6%) patients had minor injuries of abrasions, lacerations, or contusions. Major trauma was defined as fracture, brain injury, hemorrhage, strangulation, or injury requiring surgical consultation. There were 12 patients with major trauma consisting of fracture injury or nonfatal strangulation. None of the patients required admission. Sexual assault by an intimate partner (odds ratio [OR] 2.6; 95% CI: 1.1-6.5) and being an adult patient compared to adolescent (OR 3.0; 95% CI, 1.1-7.7) was significantly associated with physical trauma. Sexual assault by an intimate partner was also associated with nonfatal strangulation (OR 4.0; 95% CI, 1.1-15.4). CONCLUSION: Physical injuries that resulted from sexual assault were mostly minor and occurred in 36% of rape victims. Intimate partner violence was found to be associated with physical trauma as well as nonfatal strangulation. Overall, this study helps us to understand key factors associated with sexual violence.

"Diffusion of innovations": a feasibility study on the pericapsular nerve group block in the emergency department for hip fractures.

OBJECTIVE: Hip fractures are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks are a safe method to manage pain and decrease opioid usage. The pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block is a novel, potentially superior block because of its motor-sparing effects. Through training, simulation, and supervision, we aim to determine whether it is feasible to perform the PENG block in the emergency department. METHODS: Phase 1 consisted of emergency physicians attending a workshop to demonstrate ultrasound proficiency, anatomical understanding, and procedural competency using a low-fidelity model. Phase 2 consisted of a prospective, observational, feasibility study of 10 patients with hip fractures. Pain scores, side effects, and opioid usage data were collected. RESULTS: The median pain score at time 0 (time of block) was 9 (interquartile range [IQR], 6.5-9). The median pain score at 30 minutes was 4 (IQR, 2.0-6.8) and 3.5 (IQR, 1.0-4.8) at 4 hours. All 10 patients required narcotics prior to the initiation of the PENG block with a median dosage of 6.25 morphine milligram equivalents (MME; IQR, 4.25-7.38 MME). After the PENG block, only 30% of the patients required further narcotics with a median dosage of 0 MME (IQR, 0-0.6 MME) until operative fixation. CONCLUSION: In this feasibility study, PENG blocks were safely administered by trained emergency physicians under supervision. We demonstrated data suggesting a trend of pain relief and decreased opiate requirements, and further investigation is necessary to measure efficacy.

Mitigating the gender gap: How "DOCTOR" badges affect physician identity.

OBJECTIVES: Patients and their families frequently misclassify female physicians in the Emergency Department (ED) as non-physicians. Physician misidentification impacts the environment of care on multiple levels; including patient satisfaction and physician well-being. Implementing "DOCTOR" badges may be a low-cost tool to rectify these problems. METHODS: The study was conducted in a large urban academic medical center. Badges with the title "DOCTOR" was distributed to 83 Emergency Medicine (EM) residents and 28 EM Attendings in the department. After 3 months, the residents and Attendings were surveyed to assess the efficacy of the intervention. Descriptive data, univariable, and multivariable analyses were conducted. RESULTS: There were 98 respondents to the pre-intervention survey and 87 respondents to the post-intervention survey. 91% of EM physicians reported that they were misidentified by the patients and their families. Compared to male EM physicians, female EM physicians were disproportionately more likely to be misidentified as a non-physician 43% vs 97%, respectfully, 95% CI: [37,66], p < 0.0001. After wearing the "DOCTOR" badges, a postintervention survey showed decrease in misidentification of female EM physicians by patients and their families to 81.6%, a 15.4% decrease, p = 0.03. Being more valued was reported by 73.7% female physicians vs. 44.9% male physicians, 95% CI [7.9,46], p = 0.007. Similarly, 64.3% EM physicians felt less frustration with misclassification, 81.6% female physicians vs. 51% male physicians, 95% CI [10.5,47], p = 0.0033. CONCLUSIONS: Female EM physicians are disproportionately misidentified by patients and their families and are more likely to feel undervalued when clarifying their roles. In only a span of 3 months, we found that the use of "DOCTOR" badges decreased misidentification and improved outcomes that may enhance physician wellness. Having EM physicians wear a "DOCTOR" badge may be a simple and effective long-term solution to this issue.

Kidney and Ureteral Stones.

Renal colic is a common complaint that presents to the emergency department. It is estimated that 13% of men and 7% of women will develop a renal stone. There is a high probability of recurrence, with 50% within 5 years. Computed tomographic scan of the abdomen and pelvis without contrast and the ultrasound of the kidneys, ureters, and bladder are the common diagnostic imaging modalities used for diagnosis. Initial treatment includes analgesics and medical expulsive therapy. Most of the patients will pass their stone spontaneously within 3 days. The remaining 20% will require urologic intervention.

External Validation of the STONE Score, a Clinical Prediction Rule for Ureteral Stone: An Observational Multi-institutional Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The STONE score is a clinical decision rule that classifies patients with suspected nephrolithiasis into low-, moderate-, and high-score groups, with corresponding probabilities of ureteral stone. We evaluate the STONE score in a multi-institutional cohort compared with physician gestalt and hypothesize that it has a sufficiently high specificity to allow clinicians to defer computed tomography (CT) scan in patients with suspected nephrolithiasis. METHODS: We assessed the STONE score with data from a randomized trial for participants with suspected nephrolithiasis who enrolled at 9 emergency departments between October 2011 and February 2013. In accordance with STONE predictors, we categorized participants into low-, moderate-, or high-score groups. We determined the performance of the STONE score and physician gestalt for ureteral stone. RESULTS: Eight hundred forty-five participants were included for analysis; 331 (39%) had a ureteral stone. The global performance of the STONE score was superior to physician gestalt (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve=0.78 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.74 to 0.81] versus 0.68 [95% CI 0.64 to 0.71]). The prevalence of ureteral stone on CT scan ranged from 14% (95% CI 9% to 19%) to 73% (95% CI 67% to 78%) in the low-, moderate-, and high-score groups. The sensitivity and specificity of a high score were 53% (95% CI 48% to 59%) and 87% (95% CI 84% to 90%), respectively. CONCLUSION: The STONE score can successfully aggregate patients into low-, medium-, and high-risk groups and predicts ureteral stone with a higher specificity than physician gestalt. However, in its present form, the STONE score lacks sufficient accuracy to allow clinicians to defer CT scan for suspected ureteral stone.

Ultrasonography versus computed tomography for suspected nephrolithiasis.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of consensus about whether the initial imaging method for patients with suspected nephrolithiasis should be computed tomography (CT) or ultrasonography. METHODS: In this multicenter, pragmatic, comparative effectiveness trial, we randomly assigned patients 18 to 76 years of age who presented to the emergency department with suspected nephrolithiasis to undergo initial diagnostic ultrasonography performed by an emergency physician (point-of-care ultrasonography), ultrasonography performed by a radiologist (radiology ultrasonography), or abdominal CT. Subsequent management, including additional imaging, was at the discretion of the physician. We compared the three groups with respect to the 30-day incidence of high-risk diagnoses with complications that could be related to missed or delayed diagnosis and the 6-month cumulative radiation exposure. Secondary outcomes were serious adverse events, related serious adverse events (deemed attributable to study participation), pain (assessed on an 11-point visual-analogue scale, with higher scores indicating more severe pain), return emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: A total of 2759 patients underwent randomization: 908 to point-of-care ultrasonography, 893 to radiology ultrasonography, and 958 to CT. The incidence of high-risk diagnoses with complications in the first 30 days was low (0.4%) and did not vary according to imaging method. The mean 6-month cumulative radiation exposure was significantly lower in the ultrasonography groups than in the CT group (P<0.001). Serious adverse events occurred in 12.4% of the patients assigned to point-of-care ultrasonography, 10.8% of those assigned to radiology ultrasonography, and 11.2% of those assigned to CT (P=0.50). Related adverse events were infrequent (incidence, 0.4%) and similar across groups. By 7 days, the average pain score was 2.0 in each group (P=0.84). Return emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and diagnostic accuracy did not differ significantly among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Initial ultrasonography was associated with lower cumulative radiation exposure than initial CT, without significant differences in high-risk diagnoses with complications, serious adverse events, pain scores, return emergency department visits, or hospitalizations. (Funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.).

Applying the International Classification of Headache Disorders to the emergency department: an assessment of reproducibility and the frequency with which a unique diagnosis can be assigned to every acute headache presentation.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Although almost 2 decades have passed since the International Headache Society first introduced its International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD), the applicability of this classification scheme in the emergency department (ED) has not been assessed. As a first step toward identifying the role the ICHD should play in the ED, we address 2 questions: Can a structured interview and adherence to the ICHD allow ED headache patients to be classified in a reproducible manner? With the ICHD, how often can one specific diagnosis be assigned to each ED headache presentation? METHODS: This was a structured interview and medical record review of patients with nontraumatic headache, performed in an urban ED from March 2004 through August 2005. Using the data from the interview and the subject's ED record, 2 emergency medicine investigators independently classified each of the headaches twice: first, to determine presence or absence of a primary headache disorder, and then to determine presence or absence of a secondary headache disorder. If a primary headache was present, it was further classified as migraine, tension-type headache, trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia, chronic daily headache, or primary headache unclassifiable. Interobserver discordance was adjudicated by an experienced headache specialist. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty patients were enrolled in the study. The emergency medicine investigators had a high level of interobserver agreement on secondary headaches (agreement 94% [95% confidence interval (CI) 92% to 96%]) and primary headaches (agreement 91% [95% CI 88% to 93%]). Among the 480 subjects, 122 (25%) had a secondary headache disorder, 309 (64%) had a primary headache disorder, 49 (10%) had a coexisting primary and secondary headache, and for 95 (20%) subjects, neither a primary nor a secondary headache could be diagnosed. Of 309 subjects with a primary headache, 186 (60%) had migraine, 34 (11%) had tension-type headache, 2 (1%) had trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia, and 77 (26%) had an unclassifiable primary headache. Overall, a specific ICHD headache diagnosis could not be assigned to 36% of subjects either because a specific primary headache disorder could not be identified or because neither a primary nor a secondary headache disorder could be diagnosed. CONCLUSION: Although a detailed structured interview in the ED and adherence to the ICHD resulted in reproducible classification of headache patients, more than one third of acute headache patients could not readily be given a specific ICHD diagnosis in the ED.

Comparison of laboratory values obtained by phlebotomy versus saline lock devices.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the utility of a peripheral saline lock device (SLD) as an alternative to a second venipuncture for obtaining selected blood samples. METHODS: This prospective study used a comparative design and was conducted in an urban emergency department (ED). Adult patients with an existing SLD in place who required serial phlebotomy were eligible for inclusion in the study. Each subject had blood samples obtained by venipuncture (control) with a Vacutainer adapter according to standard protocols. Within 5 minutes of obtaining the control samples, a sample was obtained from the patients' SLDs; a tourniquet was applied proximal to the intravenous line, a 5-mL waste portion was obtained, and a Vacutainer adapter was placed to draw specimens for testing. Each of the paired samples was analyzed for hematocrit, electrolytes, and cardiac enzymes. The Bland-Altman method was used to analyze the concordance between each pair of measurements. Paired t-tests for each of the eight laboratory tests were used to assess whether the values were statistically different from each other. The 95% limits of agreement around the mean differences were calculated. Differences between SLD aspirates and venipuncture aspirates also were compared with the federal regulatory standards that ensure reliable and accurate laboratory testing. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients were eligible for the study; in 73 (90.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 81.5% to 95.6%) of the patients, the SLD could be aspirated for testing. The paired t-tests indicated that there were no statistically significant differences between the mean values of the two methods of testing. Of the 584 paired values analyzed, 35 (6.0%; 95% CI = 4.3% to 8.2%) exceeded the Bland-Altman limits of agreement, and 43 (7.4%; 95% CI = 5.4% to 9.8%) fell outside the acceptable range determined by the federal regulation of clinical laboratories. Of those values that exceeded the acceptable Bland-Altman limits of agreement, none would have resulted in clinical intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Aspirating blood via an SLD is an acceptable method of obtaining serial laboratory values in a group of stable, consenting adult ED patients.

A clinical trial of trimethobenzamide/diphenhydramine versus sumatriptan for acute migraines.

BACKGROUND: Although various classes of medication are used to treat acute migraine in the emergency department (ED), no treatment offers complete pain relief without side effects or recurrence of headache. Consequently, even though several antiemetic medications as well as SQ sumatriptan have demonstrated efficacy and tolerability for the ED treatment of migraine, there remains a need for more effective parenteral therapies. Open-label studies suggest that the combination of trimethobenzamide and diphenhydramine (TMB/DPH) may provide effective relief in a high proportion of migraineurs. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that ED patients with acute migraine, given intramuscular TMB/DPH, would have a larger reduction in their pain scores than patients given SQ sumatriptan. METHODS: This was an ED-based, randomized, double-blind, "double-dummy" clinical trial comparing 2 parenteral treatments for acute migraine headaches. Subjects received a combination of TMB 200 mg and DPH 25 mg as a single intramuscular injection or 6 mg of SQ sumatriptan. Pain scores, disability scores, associated symptoms, and adverse effects were assessed for 2 hours in the ED and by telephone 24 hours after medication administration. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in reduction of pain intensity as measured by a validated numerical rating scale 2 hours after medication administration. This study was designed to detect superiority of TMB/DPH; therefore, a 1-tailed t-test was used. An interim analysis was planned to terminate the trial if predetermined endpoints in the primary outcome variable were reached. RESULTS: The trial was stopped by the data monitoring committee after 40 subjects were enrolled because a substantial benefit in the primary outcome was found favoring sumatriptan. Baseline pain scores were comparable between the 2 groups. By 2 hours, sumatriptan subjects had improved by a mean of 6.1 and the TMB/DPH subjects had improved by a mean of 4.4 (95% CI for difference of 1.7: -0.1 to 3.4). By 24 hours after medication administration, sumatriptan subjects had a mean improvement from baseline of 4.9 as compared to 5.3 for TMB (95% CI for difference of -0.4: -2.4 to 1.6). The need for rescue medication was comparable between the groups. No serious or frequent adverse effects were noted in either group. CONCLUSIONS: SQ sumatriptan is probably superior to TMB/DPH for treating the pain of acute migraine at 2 hours. However, TMB/DPH was well-tolerated, efficacious, and relieved pain comparably to sumatriptan at 24 hours. TMB/DPH might have a role in select populations in which sumatriptan is contraindicated or likely to be ineffective.

Concordance between capnography and arterial blood gas measurements of carbon dioxide in acute asthma.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We examine the concordance between end-tidal partial pressure of CO2 (PetCO2) measured by capnography and arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) obtained by arterial blood gas in acute asthmatic patients presenting to the emergency department. METHODS: This was a prospective observational cohort study of acutely ill adult asthmatic patients undergoing an arterial blood gas measurement as part of their evaluation. PetCO2 was recorded during exhalation into a capnograph while arterial blood was pulsing in the arterial blood gas tubing. Concordance between PetCO2 and PaCO2 was displayed as a Bland-Altman matrix, using prespecified limits of agreement of +/-5 mm Hg difference between PetCO2 and PaCO2 in each patient. RESULTS: The mean difference between the PetCO2 and PaCO2 levels was 1.0 mm Hg (95% confidence interval -0.1 to 2.0 mm Hg), with a median of 0 mm Hg. Of the 39 patients enrolled, 37 (95%) fell within the a priori limits of agreement. CONCLUSION: In adult asthmatic patients with acute exacerbations, concordance between PetCO2 measured by capnography and PaCO2 measured by arterial blood gas was high. These findings must be validated before capnography replacement of arterial blood gas as an accurate means of assessing alveolar ventilation in acute asthma is recommended.

Who should be estimating a patient's weight in the emergency department?

OBJECTIVES: Medical personnel often need to estimate a patient's weight rapidly and accurately to administer pharmacologic agents whose dosages are based on weight. Inaccurate estimates of weight may result in administration of either subtherapeutic or, in other cases, toxic doses of medications. The hypothesis of this study was that the patient is a more accurate estimator of his or her own weight than the physician or nurse caring for him or her. METHODS: This was a prospective study in which adult patients presenting to an urban emergency department (ED) were examined for study eligibility. Patients unable to stand were excluded. The patient, physician, and nurse caring for the patients were independently asked to estimate the patients' weights. The patients were then weighed. RESULTS: A convenience sample of 458 patients were enrolled during a four-week period. The median measured (actual) weight was 172.5 lb. The best estimate of a patient's weight was made by the patient himself or herself: the median difference between patient estimates and actual weights was 0 lb (interquartile range [IQR] = -5 to 5). The physicians and nurses had larger underestimates: -5 lb (IQR = -22 to 12) and -6 lb (IQR = -22 to 10), respectively. Weight was estimated within 10% of actual weight by 90.6% of the patients, 50.4% of the physicians, and 49.6% of the nurses. CONCLUSIONS: When a patient is unable to be weighed, the patient's own weight estimate should be used. If neither is possible, the physician or nurse should estimate the patient's weight.

Delayed presentation of diffuse axonal injury: a case report.

This report highlights a case of delayed onset of diffuse axonal injury in the apparent absence of direct head trauma. This case questions the appropriate observation period for patients with signs of diffuse axonal injury presenting after a high-velocity crash.

The role of anticonvulsants in preventive migraine therapy.

The mainstay of migraine treatment is pharmacotherapy. There have been numerous medications used to prevent migraine headaches, including b-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, anticonvulsants, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Sodium valproate is the only antiepileptic drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration for migraine prevention. Newer antiepileptics, including gabapentin and topiramate, are being evaluated for their role in preventive therapy. The mechanism of action of antiepileptics is not fully understood, but they all share a common role in enhancing gamma-aminobutyric acid-mediated inhibition. This article reviews the role of anticonvulsants in preventive migraine therapy.