Guidelines for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE-4): Alcohol use disorder and cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome management in the emergency department.

The fourth Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Guidelines for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE-4) is on the topic of the emergency department (ED) management of nonopioid use disorders and focuses on alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS), alcohol use disorder (AUD), and cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS). The SAEM GRACE-4 Writing Team, composed of emergency physicians and experts in addiction medicine and patients with lived experience, applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding six priority questions for adult ED patients with AWS, AUD, and CHS. The SAEM GRACE-4 Writing Team reached the following recommendations: (1) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) with moderate to severe AWS who are being admitted to hospital, we suggest using phenobarbital in addition to benzodiazepines compared to using benzodiazepines alone [low to very low certainty of evidence]; (2) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) with AUD who desire alcohol cessation, we suggest a prescription for one anticraving medication [very low certainty of evidence]; (2a) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) with AUD, we suggest naltrexone (compared to no prescription) to prevent return to heavy drinking [low certainty of evidence]; (2b) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) with AUD and contraindications to naltrexone, we suggest acamprosate (compared to no prescription) to prevent return to heavy drinking and/or to reduce heavy drinking [low certainty of evidence]; (2c) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) with AUD, we suggest gabapentin (compared to no prescription) for the management of AUD to reduce heavy drinking days and improve alcohol withdrawal symptoms [very low certainty of evidence]; (3a) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) presenting to the ED with CHS we suggest the use of haloperidol or droperidol (in addition to usual care/serotonin antagonists, e.g., ondansetron) to help with symptom management [very low certainty of evidence]; and (3b) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) presenting to the ED with CHS, we also suggest offering the use of topical capsaicin (in addition to usual care/serotonin antagonists, e.g., ondansetron) to help with symptom management [very low certainty of evidence].

Frontline Providers' and Patients' Perspectives on Improving Diagnostic Safety in the Emergency Department: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have described the insights of frontline health care providers and patients on how the diagnostic process can be improved in the emergency department (ED), a setting at high risk for diagnostic errors. The authors aimed to identify the perspectives of providers and patients on the diagnostic process and identify potential interventions to improve diagnostic safety. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 10 ED physicians, 15 ED nurses, and 9 patients/caregivers at two separate health systems. Interview questions were guided by the ED-Adapted National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Diagnostic Process Framework and explored participant perspectives on the ED diagnostic process, identified vulnerabilities, and solicited interventions to improve diagnostic safety. The authors performed qualitative thematic analysis on transcribed interviews. RESULTS: The research team categorized vulnerabilities in the diagnostic process and intervention opportunities based on the ED-Adapted Framework into five domains: (1) team dynamics and communication (for example, suboptimal communication between referring physicians and the ED team); (2) information gathering related to patient presentation (for example, obtaining the history from the patients or their caregivers; (3) ED organization, system, and processes (for example, staff schedules and handoffs); (4) patient education and self-management (for example, patient education at discharge from the ED); and (5) electronic health record and patient portal use (for example, automatic release of test results into the patient portal). The authors identified 33 potential interventions, of which 17 were provider focused and 16 were patient focused. CONCLUSION: Frontline providers and patients identified several vulnerabilities and potential interventions to improve ED diagnostic safety. Refining, implementing, and evaluating the efficacy of these interventions are required.

Risk of falls is associated with 30-day mortality among older adults in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: Falls in older adults correlate with heightened morbidity and mortality. Assessing fall risk in the emergency department (ED) not only aids in identifying candidates for prevention interventions but may also offer insights into overall mortality risk. We sought to examine the link between fall risk and 30-day mortality in older ED adults. METHODS: Observational cohort study of adults aged ≥ 75years who presented to an academic ED and who were assessed for fall risk using the Memorial Emergency Department Fall Risk Assessment Tool (MEDFRAT), a validated, ED-specific screening tool. The fall risk was classified as low (0-2 points), moderate (3-4 points), or high (≥5) risk. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 941 patients whose fall risk was assessed in the ED were included in the study. Median age was 83.7 years; 45.6% were male, 75.6% lived in private residences, and 62.7% were admitted. Mortality at 30 days among the high fall risk group was four times that of the low fall risk group (11.8% vs 3.1%; HR 4.00, 95% CI 2.18 to 7.34, p < 0.001). Moderate fall risk individuals had nearly double the mortality rate of the low-risk group (6.0% vs 3.1%), but the difference was not statistically significant (HR 1.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 4.32, p = 0.087). CONCLUSION: ED fall risk assessments are linked to 30-day mortality. Screening may facilitate the stratification of older adults at risk for health deterioration.

Effect of Bougie Use on First-Attempt Success in Tracheal Intubations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The use of a bougie, a flexible endotracheal tube introducer, has been proposed to optimize first-attempt success in emergency department intubations. We aimed to evaluate the available evidence on the association of bougie use in the first attempt and success in tracheal intubations. This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that evaluated first-attempt success between adults intubated with a bougie versus without a bougie (usually with a stylet) in all settings. Manikin and cadaver studies were excluded. A medical librarian searched Ovid Cochrane Central, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies from inception to June 2023. Study selection and data extraction were done in duplicate by 2 independent reviewers. We conducted a meta-analysis with random-effects models, and we used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence at the outcome level. We screened a total of 2,699 studies, and 133 were selected for full-text review. A total of 18 studies, including 12 randomized controlled trials, underwent quantitative analysis. In the meta-analysis of 18 studies (9,151 patients), bougie use was associated with increased first-attempt intubation success (pooled risk ratio [RR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06 to 1.17, low certainty evidence). Bougie use was associated with increased first-attempt success across all analyzed subgroups with similar effect estimates, including in emergency intubations (9 studies; 8,070 patients; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.16, low certainty). The highest point estimate favoring the use of a bougie was in the subgroup of patients with Cormack-Lehane III or IV (5 studies, 585 patients, RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.40 to 1.84, moderate certainty). In this meta-analysis, the bougie as an aid in the first intubation attempt was associated with increased success. Despite the certainty of evidence being low, these data suggest that a bougie should probably be used first and not as a rescue device in emergency intubations.

Risk of arrhythmia in post-resuscitative shock after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with epinephrine versus norepinephrine.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the rates of clinically significant tachyarrhythmias and mortality in the management of post-resuscitative shock after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) who receive a continuous epinephrine versus norepinephrine infusion. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A large multi-site health system with hospitals across the United States. PATIENTS: Adult patients admitted for OHCA with post-resuscitative shock managed with either epinephrine or norepinephrine infusions within 6 h of ROSC. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Between May 5th, 2018, to January 31st, 2022, there were 221 patients admitted for OHCA who received post-resuscitative epinephrine or norepinephrine infusions. There was no difference in the rate of tachyarrhythmias between epinephrine and norepinephrine infusion in univariate (47.1% vs 41.7%, OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.71-2.20) or multivariable analysis (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.68-2.62). Patients treated with epinephrine were more likely to die during hospitalization than those treated with norepinephrine (90.0% vs 54.3%, OR 6.21, 95% CI 2.37-16.25, p < 0.001). Epinephrine treated patients were more likely to have re-arrest during hospital admission (55.7% vs 14.6%, OR 5.77, 95% CI 2.74-12.18, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant difference in clinically significant cardiac tachyarrhythmias in post-OHCA patients treated with epinephrine versus norepinephrine infusions after ROSC. Re-arrest rates and in-hospital mortality were higher in patients who received epinephrine infusions in the first 6 h post-ROSC. Results of this study add to the literature suggesting norepinephrine may be the vasopressor of choice in post-OHCA patients with post-resuscitative shock after ROSC.

Real world utilization of Andexanet alfa in the management of oral factor Xa inhibitor-associated gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Andexanet alfa (AA) is approved for reversal of factor Xa inhibitor (FXaI) bleeds; however, there are limited reports of its use for gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in real-world populations. The objective of this study was to report real-world utilization and evaluation of the effectiveness of AA for FXaI-associated GIB. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients receiving AA for FXaI-associated GIB (7/2018-2/2021). Demographics, blood product administration, hemostatic efficacy, rebleeding, thrombosis, and mortality rates were collected. Hemostatic efficacy (HE), based on corrected hemoglobin at 12 h compared to baseline, was categorized as excellent (<10% decrease), good (≤ 20% decrease), or poor (>20% decrease, > 2 units of additional coagulation intervention or death prior to repeat hemoglobin). Comparative transfusion requirements between efficacy groups was assessed by Wilcoxon-Rank test. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were included (64% male, median (IQR) age 76 years (67, 80). Most patients (59%, n = 13) were on apixaban, and the primary anticoagulation indication was atrial fibrillation (64%, n = 14). Median initial hemoglobin was 7.5 g/dL (IQR 6.4, 8.8) and 50% (n = 11) were upper GIB. Hemostatic efficacy was excellent in 46% (n = 10), good in 23% (n = 5), and poor in 32% (n = 7). There was no statistically significant difference in red blood cells (RBCs) received between those with excellent/good hemostasis (median 2, IQR 1 to 2) and those with poor hemostasis (median 4, IQR 1.5 to 4.5). Two patients (9%) had arterial thrombotic events within 30 days of reversal. CONCLUSION: In this multicenter, single arm, real-world observational analysis of patients with factor Xa inhibitor associated GIB most patients achieved good hemostasis following administration of AA. There was a 9% 30-day thrombotic event rate. The lack of a control group limits the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn from this study.

Teaching Palliative Care to Emergency Medicine Residents Using Gamified Deliberate Practice-Based Simulation: Palliative Gaming Simulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency departments (EDs) care for many patients nearing the end of life with advanced serious illnesses. Simulation training offers an opportunity to teach physicians the interpersonal skills required to manage end-of-life care. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized a gaming simulation of an imminently dying patient using the LIVE. DIE. REPEAT (LDR) format, would be perceived as an effective method to teach end-of-life communication and palliative care management skills. METHODS: This was a gaming simulation replicating the experience of caring for a dying patient with advanced serious illness in the ED. The scenario involved a patient with pancreatic cancer presenting with sepsis and respiratory distress, with a previously established goal of comfort care. The gaming simulation game was divided into 4 stages, and at each level, learners were tasked with completing 1 critical action. The gaming simulation was designed using the LDR serious game scheme in which learners are allowed infinite opportunities to progress through defined stages depicting a single patient scenario. If learners successfully complete the predetermined critical actions of each stage, the game is paused, and there is a debriefing to reinforce knowledge or skills before progressing to the next stage of the gaming simulation. Conversely, if learners do not achieve the critical actions, the game is over, and learners undergo debriefing before repeating the failed stage with an immediate transition into the next. We used the Simulation Effectiveness Tool-Modified survey to evaluate perceived effectiveness in teaching end-of-life management. RESULTS: Eighty percent (16/20) of residents completed the Simulation Effectiveness Tool-Modified survey, and nearly 100% (20/20) either strongly or somewhat agreed that the gaming simulation improved their skills and confidence at the end of life in the following dimensions: (1) better prepared to respond to changes in condition, (2) more confident in assessment skills, (3) teaching patients, (4) reporting to the health care team, (5) empowered to make clinical decisions, and (6) able to prioritize care and interventions. All residents felt the debriefing contributed to learning and provided opportunities to self-reflect. All strongly or somewhat agree that they felt better prepared to respond to changes in the patient's condition, had a better understanding of pathophysiology, were more confident on their assessment skills, and had a better understanding of the medications and therapies after the gaming simulation. A total of 88% (14/16) of them feel more empowered to make clinical decisions. After completing the gaming simulation, 88% (14/16) of residents strongly agreed that they would feel more confident communicating with a patient and prioritizing care interventions in this context. CONCLUSIONS: This palliative gaming simulation using the LDR format was perceived by resident physicians to improve confidence in end-of-life communication and palliative care management.

Efficacy of analgesic and sub-dissociative dose ketamine for acute pain in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Acute pain accounts for over 70% of Emergency Department (ED) visits. Sub-dissociative dose ketamine (0.1-0.6 mg/kg) is safe and effective for the management of acute pain in the ED. However, the optimal dose of intravenous ketamine that provides effective analgesia and minimizes the risk of adverse effects has yet to be identified. The objective of this study was to describe an effective analgesia dose range of IV ketamine for acute pain in the ED. METHODS: This multi-center, retrospective cohort study evaluated adult patients who received analgesic and sub-dissociative dose ketamine for the management of acute pain between May 5, 2018, and August 30, 2021, in 21 emergency departments at academic, community, and critical access hospitals across four states. Patients were excluded if they received ketamine for an indication other than pain, such as procedural sedation or intubation, or for whom there was incomplete documentation for the primary outcome. Patients who received a ketamine dose <0.3 mg/kg were stratified into the low-dose group, and those who received a dose of 0.3 mg/kg or higher to the high-dose group. The primary outcome was change in pain scores within 60 min using a standard 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes included incidence of adverse effects and use of rescue analgesics. Continuous variables were compared between dose groups using student t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test. Linear regression was used to assess the association between the change in NRS pain scores within 60 min and dose after adjusting for baseline pain, requiring an additional dose of ketamine, and receiving an opioid. RESULTS: From 3796 patient encounters screened for receipt of ketamine, 384 patients met inclusion criteria including 258 in the low-dose group, and 126 in the high-dose group. The primary reason for exclusion was incomplete documentation of pain scores, or ketamine used for sedation. Median baseline pain scores were 8.2 in the low-dose group and 7.8 in the high-dose group (difference 0.5; 95% CI 0 to 1, p = 0.04). Both groups demonstrated significant reductions in their mean NRS pain scores within 60 min following the first administration of IV ketamine. There were no differences in the change in pain scores between both groups (-2.2 vs -2.6, mean difference 0.4, 95% CI -0.4 to 1.1, p = 0.34). Use of rescue analgesics (40.7% vs 36.5%, p = 0.43) and adverse effects were similar between groups, including early discontinuation of the ketamine infusion (37.2% vs. 37.3%, p = 0.99). Overall, the most common adverse effects were agitation (7.3%) and nausea (7.0%). CONCLUSION: The analgesic efficacy and safety of high-dose sub-dissociative ketamine (≥0.3 mg/kg) was not superior to low-dose (< 0.3 mg/kg) for the management of acute pain in the ED. Low-dose ketamine <0.3 mg/kg is an effective and safe pain management strategy in this population.

Guidelines for reasonable and appropriate care in the emergency department 3 (GRACE-3): Acute dizziness and vertigo in the emergency department.

This third Guideline for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE-3) from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine is on the topic adult patients with acute dizziness and vertigo in the emergency department (ED). A multidisciplinary guideline panel applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding five questions for adult ED patients with acute dizziness of less than 2 weeks' duration. The intended population is adults presenting to the ED with acute dizziness or vertigo. The panel derived 15 evidence-based recommendations based on the timing and triggers of the dizziness but recognizes that alternative diagnostic approaches exist, such as the STANDING protocol and nystagmus examination in combination with gait unsteadiness or the presence of vascular risk factors. As an overarching recommendation, (1) emergency clinicians should receive training in bedside physical examination techniques for patients with the acute vestibular syndrome (AVS; HINTS) and the diagnostic and therapeutic maneuvers for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV; Dix-Hallpike test and Epley maneuver). To help distinguish central from peripheral causes in patients with the AVS, we recommend: (2) use HINTS (for clinicians trained in its use) in patients with nystagmus, (3) use finger rub to further aid in excluding stroke in patients with nystagmus, (4) use severity of gait unsteadiness in patients without nystagmus, (5) do not use brain computed tomography (CT), (6) do not use routine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a first-line test if a clinician trained in HINTS is available, and (7) use MRI as a confirmatory test in patients with central or equivocal HINTS examinations. In patients with the spontaneous episodic vestibular syndrome: (8) search for symptoms or signs of cerebral ischemia, (9) do not use CT, and (10) use CT angiography or MRI angiography if there is concern for transient ischemic attack. In patients with the triggered (positional) episodic vestibular syndrome, (11) use the Dix-Hallpike test to diagnose posterior canal BPPV (pc-BPPV), (12) do not use CT, and (13) do not use MRI routinely, unless atypical clinical features are present. In patients diagnosed with vestibular neuritis, (14) consider short-term steroids as a treatment option. In patients diagnosed with pc-BPPV, (15) treat with the Epley maneuver. It is clear that as of 2023, when applied in routine practice by emergency clinicians without special training, HINTS testing is inaccurate, partly due to use in the wrong patients and partly due to issues with its interpretation. Most emergency physicians have not received training in use of HINTS. As such, it is not standard of care, either in the legal sense of that term ("what the average physician would do in similar circumstances") or in the common parlance sense ("the standard action typically used by physicians in routine practice").

Epley maneuver for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo: Evidence synthesis for guidelines for reasonable and appropriate care in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Canalith repositioning maneuvers (such as the Epley maneuver) are recommended by specialty guidelines for management of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) yet are frequently underutilized in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of systematic reviews to summarize the evidence of Epley maneuver for the treatment of posterior canal (pc) BPPV in any setting. We included systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared Epley to control in adult patients with pc-BPPV. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened in duplicate. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment was used to rate certainty of evidence. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are reported. Meta-analysis of individual studies was conducted with random and fixed effects. RESULTS: From 2,228 titles, 7 systematic reviews were selected for quality assessment. One review was of higher methodological quality, included only RCTs, and was the most current and comprehensive. Five of the 11 RCTs of the review, including 312 patients with pc-BPPV diagnosed by Dix-Hallpike, were relevant to our question. Meta-analysis of 4 RCTs (251 patients) showed the use of Epley (as compared to control) was associated with higher complete resolution of vertigo at 1 week (OR 7.19, CI 1.52 to 33.98, moderate certainty). Meta-analysis of 3 RCTs (195 patients) showed the use of Epley was associated with higher conversion to negative Dix-Hallpike at 1 week (OR 6.67, CI 1.52 to 33.98, moderate certainty). The number-needed-to-treat was 3. Meta-analysis of the outcomes at 1 month, and when observational studies were included, showed similar results. No serious adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Symptoms of pc-BPPV improve with the Epley maneuver. Emergency clinicians should become familiar with performing the Epley for BPPV. Further studies on ED implementation and clinician education of Epley are needed.

Safety and effectiveness of benzodiazepines and antipsychotics for agitation in older adults in the emergency department.

PURPOSE: To examine the safety and effectiveness of benzodiazepines (BZD) as compared to antipsychotics for the management of acute agitation in older adults in the emergency department (ED). BASIC PROCEDURES: Retrospective observational cohort study of 21 EDs across four states in the US, including adults ≥60 years old who received either BZD or antipsychotics for acute agitation in the ED and subsequently were admitted to the hospital. Safety was measured as presence of adverse events: respiratory depression, cardiovascular effects, extrapyramidal side effects, or a fall during hospitalization. Effectiveness was measured as indicators of treatment failure: need for additional medication, one-to-one observation, or physical restraints following initial medication administration. Proportions and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were used to assess the association between potential risk factors and for efficacy and safety endpoints. MAIN FINDINGS: A total of 684 patients were included (63.9% received a BZD and 36.1% an antipsychotic). There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events between groups (20.6% vs 14.6%, difference 6.0%, 95% CI -0.2% to 11.8%), but there was a higher intubation rate in the BZD group (2.7% vs 0.4%, difference 2.3%). There were more treatment failures in the antipsychotic group for the composite primary efficacy endpoint (94.3% vs 87.6%, difference 6.7%, 95% CI 2.5% to 10.9%). This appears to have been driven by the need for 1:1 observation; sensitivity analysis excluding 1:1 observation in the composite outcome demonstrated no significant difference with a failure rate of 38.5% in the antipsychotic group and 35.2% in the benzodiazepine group. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: Overall there are high rates of treatment failure among agitated older adults receiving pharmacological treatment for agitation in the emergency department. The optimal selection of pharmacological treatment for agitation in older adults should be made considering patient-specific factors that could increase the risk of adverse effects or treatment failure.

Association of delirium with increased short-term mortality among older emergency department patients: A cohort study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between delirium and subsequent short-term mortality in geriatric patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This was an observational cohort study of adults age ≥75 years who presented to an academic ED and were screened for delirium during their ED visit. The Delirium Triage Screen followed by the Brief Confusion Assessment Method were used to ascertain the presence of delirium. In-hospital, 7-day, and 30-day mortality were compared between patients with and without ED delirium. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated through logistic regression after adjusting for confounders including age, sex, history of dementia, ED disposition, and acuity. RESULTS: A total of 967 ED visits were included for analysis among which delirium was detected in 107 (11.1%). The median age of the cohort was 83 years (IQR 79, 88), 526 (54.4%) were female, 285 (29.5%) had documented dementia, and 171 (17.7%) had a high acuity Emergency Severity Index triage level 1 or 2. During the hospitalization, 5/107 (4.7%) of those with delirium and 4/860 (0.5%) of those without delirium died. Within 7 days of ED departure, 6/107 (5.6%) of those with delirium and 6/860 (0.7%) of those without delirium died (unadjusted OR 8.46, 95% CI 2.68-26.71). Within 30 days, 18/107 (16.8%) of those with delirium and 37/860 (4.3%) of those without delirium died (unadjusted OR 4.50, 95% CI 2.46-8.23). ED delirium remained associated with higher 7-day (adjusted OR 5.23, 95% CI 1.44-19.05, p = 0.008) and 30-day mortality (adjusted OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.45-5.46, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Delirium is an important prognostic factor that ED clinicians and nurses must be aware of to optimize delirium prevention, management, disposition, and communication with patients and families.

Comparison of clinical note quality between an automated digital intake tool and the standard note in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Medical encounters require an efficient and focused history of present illness (HPI) to create differential diagnoses and guide diagnostic testing and treatment. Our aim was to compare the HPI of notes created by an automated digital intake tool versus standard medical notes created by clinicians. METHODS: Prospective trial in a quaternary academic Emergency Department (ED). Notes were compared using the 5-point Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9) scale and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) level of complexity index. Reviewers were board certified emergency medicine physicians blinded to note origin. Reviewers received training and calibration prior to note assessments. A difference of 1 point was considered clinically significant. Analysis included McNemar's (binary), Wilcoxon-rank (Likert), and agreement with Cohen's Kappa. RESULTS: A total of 148 ED medical encounters were charted by both digital note and standard clinical note. The ability to capture patient information was assessed through comparison of note content across paired charts (digital-standard note on the same patient), as well as scores given by the reviewers. Reviewer agreement was kappa 0.56 (CI 0.49-0.64), indicating moderate level of agreement between reviewers scoring the same patient chart. Considering all 18 questions across PDQI-9 and CMS scales, the average agreement between standard clinical note and digital note was 54.3% (IQR 44.4-66.7%). There was a moderate level of agreement between content of standard and digital notes (kappa 0.54, 95%CI 0.49-0.60). The quality of the digital note was within the 1 point clinically significant difference for all of the attributes, except for conciseness. Digital notes had a higher frequency of CMS severity elements identified. CONCLUSION: Digitally generated clinical notes had moderate agreement compared to standard clinical notes and within the one point clinically significant difference except for the conciseness attribute. Digital notes more reliably documented billing components of severity. The use of automated notes should be further explored to evaluate its utility in facilitating documentation of patient encounters.

Diagnostic accuracy of the physical examination in emergency department patients with acute vertigo or dizziness: A systematic review and meta-analysis for GRACE-3.

BACKGROUND: History and physical examination are key features to narrow the differential diagnosis of central versus peripheral causes in patients presenting with acute vertigo. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic test accuracy of physical examination findings. METHODS: This study involved a patient-intervention-control-outcome (PICO) question: (P) adult ED patients with vertigo/dizziness; (I) presence/absence of specific physical examination findings; and (O) central (ischemic stroke, hemorrhage, others) versus peripheral etiology. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) was assessed. RESULTS: From 6309 titles, 460 articles were retrieved, and 43 met the inclusion criteria: general neurologic examination-five studies, 869 patients, pooled sensitivity 46.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 32.3%-61.9%, moderate certainty) and specificity 92.8% (95% CI 75.7%-98.1%, low certainty); limb weakness/hemiparesis-four studies, 893 patients, sensitivity 11.4% (95% CI 5.1%-23.6%, high) and specificity 98.5% (95% CI 97.1%-99.2%, high); truncal/gait ataxia-10 studies, 1810 patients (increasing severity of truncal ataxia had an increasing sensitivity for central etiology, sensitivity 69.7% [43.3%-87.9%, low] and specificity 83.7% [95% CI 52.1%-96.0%, low]); dysmetria signs-four studies, 1135 patients, sensitivity 24.6% (95% CI 15.6%-36.5%, high) and specificity 97.8% (94.4%-99.2%, high); head impulse test (HIT)-17 studies, 1366 patients, sensitivity 76.8% (64.4%-85.8%, low) and specificity 89.1% (95% CI 75.8%-95.6%, moderate); spontaneous nystagmus-six studies, 621 patients, sensitivity 52.3% (29.8%-74.0%, moderate) and specificity 42.0% (95% CI 15.5%-74.1%, moderate); nystagmus type-16 studies, 1366 patients (bidirectional, vertical, direction changing, or pure torsional nystagmus are consistent with a central cause of vertigo, sensitivity 50.7% [95% CI 41.1%-60.2%, moderate] and specificity 98.5% [95% CI 91.7%-99.7%, moderate]); test of skew-15 studies, 1150 patients (skew deviation is abnormal and consistent with central etiology, sensitivity was 23.7% [95% CI 15%-35.4%, moderate] and specificity 97.6% [95% CI 96%-98.6%, moderate]); HINTS (head impulse, nystagmus, test of skew)-14 studies, 1781 patients, sensitivity 92.9% (95% CI 79.1%-97.9%, high) and specificity 83.4% (95% CI 69.6%-91.7%, moderate); and HINTS+ (HINTS with hearing component)-five studies, 342 patients, sensitivity 99.0% (95% CI 73.6%-100%, high) and specificity 84.8% (95% CI 70.1%-93.0%, high). CONCLUSIONS: Most neurologic examination findings have low sensitivity and high specificity for a central cause in patients with acute vertigo or dizziness. In acute vestibular syndrome (monophasic, continuous, persistent dizziness), HINTS and HINTS+ have high sensitivity when performed by trained clinicians.

Diagnostic accuracy of neuroimaging in emergency department patients with acute vertigo or dizziness: A systematic review and meta-analysis for the guidelines for reasonable and appropriate care in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute vertigo or dizziness represent a diagnostic challenge. Neuroimaging has variable indications and yield. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic test accuracy of neuroimaging for patients presenting with acute vertigo or dizziness. METHODS: An electronic search was designed following patient-intervention-control-outcome (PICO) question-(P) adult patients with acute vertigo or dizziness presenting to the ED; (I) neuroimaging including computed tomography (CT), CT angiography (CTA), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), and ultrasound (US); (C) MRI/clinical criterion standard; and (O) central causes (stroke, hemorrhage, tumor, others) versus peripheral causes of symptoms. Articles were assessed in duplicate. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) was used to assess certainty of evidence in pooled estimates. RESULTS: We included studies that reported diagnostic test accuracy. From 6309 titles, 460 articles were retrieved, and 12 were included: noncontrast CT scan-six studies, 771 patients, pooled sensitivity 28.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.4%-48.5%, moderate certainty) and specificity 98.9% (95% CI 93.4%-99.8%, moderate certainty); MRI-five studies, 943 patients, sensitivity 79.8% (95% CI 71.4%-86.2%, high certainty) and specificity 98.8% (95% CI 96.2%-100%, high certainty); CTA-one study, 153 patients, sensitivity 14.3% (95% CI 1.8%-42.8%) and specificity 97.7% (95% CI 93.8%-99.6%), CT had higher sensitivity than CTA (21.4% and 14.3%) for central etiology; MRA-one study, 24 patients, sensitivity 60.0% (95% CI 26.2%-87.8%) and specificity 92.9% (95% CI 66.1%-99.8%); US-three studies, 258 patients, sensitivity ranged from 30% to 53.6%, specificity from 94.9% to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Noncontrast CT has very low sensitivity and MRI will miss approximately one in five patients with stroke if imaging is obtained early after symptom onset. The evidence does not support neuroimaging as the only tool for ruling out stroke and other central causes in patients with acute dizziness or vertigo presenting to the ED.