Contrast-enhanced point of care ultrasound for the evaluation of stable blunt abdominal trauma by the emergency physician: A prospective diagnostic study.

Objectives: Clinical examination alone cannot reliably rule out significant traumatic abdominal injury. Computed tomography (CT) has become the primary method for evaluating blunt abdominal trauma and clinicians rely heavily on it to rule out abdominal injury. Ultrasound examination may miss significant abdominal injury particularly in stable patients. The use of a contrast agent improves ultrasound sensitivity to visceral abdominal injuries. The objective of this diagnostic study is to compare bedside contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) performed by emergency physicians to CT in hemodynamically stable adults for the assessment of blunt abdominal trauma and evaluate CEUS accuracy outcomes. Methods: Hemodynamically stable patients with blunt trauma were prospectively enrolled in the trauma bay. After initial evaluation, we included patients at risk of abdominal injury and for whom an abdominal CT was planned by the trauma leader. Ultrasonography was performed prospectively and at the bedside by the emergency physician followed by abdominal CT used as a reference standard. Results: Thirty-three patients were enrolled in the study; among them, 52% showed positive traumatic findings in abdominal CT scans, and 42% were diagnosed with solid organ lesions. Compared to CT, a focused abdominal sonography (FOCUS) examination, looking for free fluid or perirenal hematoma, showed limited performance for traumatic findings with a sensitivity of 65% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 38%-86%), a specificity of 75% (95% CI: 48%-93%), a negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of 0.47 (95% CI: 0.23-0.95), and a positive likelihood ratio (PLR) of 2.59 (95% CI: 1.03-6.48). When combining FOCUS with CEUS, the sensitivity of the sonography increased to 94% (95% CI: 71%-100%) with a specificity of 75% (95% CI: 48%-93%). The PLR was 3.76 (95% CI: 1.6-8.87) and the NLR was 0.08 (95% CI: 0.01-0.54). In our population, abdominal sonography with contrast failed to identify a single positive abdominal CT with a grade 1 kidney injury. Conclusions: A FOCUS examination shows limited sensitivity and specificity to detect positive abdominal CT in stable adults with abdominal trauma. With the addition of contrast and careful inspection of solid organs, abdominal sonography with contrast performed by the emergency physician improves the ability to rule out traumatic findings on abdominal CT. CEUS performed by emergency physicians may miss injuries, especially in the absence of free fluid, in cases of low-grade injuries, simultaneous injuries, or poor-quality examinations.

www.coronabambini.ch: Development and usage of an online decision support tool for paediatric COVID-19-testing in Switzerland: a cross-sectional analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the development and usage of www.coronabambini.ch as an example of a paediatric electronic public health application and to explore its potential and limitations in providing information on disease epidemiology and public health policy implementation. DESIGN: We developed and maintained a non-commercial online decision support tool, www.coronabambini.ch, to translate the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) paediatric (age 0-18 years) COVID-19 guidelines around testing and school/daycare attendance for caregivers, teachers and healthcare personnel. We analysed the online decision tool as well as a voluntary follow-up survey from October 2020 to September 2021 to explore its potential as a surveillance tool for public health policy and epidemiology. PARTICIPANTS: 68 269 users accessed and 52 726 filled out the complete online decision tool. 3% (1399/52 726) filled out a voluntary follow-up. 92% (18 797/20 330) of users were parents. RESULTS: Certain dynamics of the pandemic and changes in testing strategies were reflected in the data captured by www.coronabambini.ch, for example, in terms of disease epidemiology, gastrointestinal symptoms were reported more frequently in younger age groups (13% (3308/26 180) in children 0-5 years vs 9% (3934/42 089) in children ≥6 years, χ2=184, p≤0.001). As a reflection of public health policy, the proportion of users consulting the tool for a positive contact without symptoms in children 6-12 years increased from 4% (1415/32 215) to 6% (636/9872) after the FOPH loosened testing criteria in this age group, χ2=69, p≤0.001. Adherence to the recommendation was generally high (84% (1131/1352)) but differed by the type of recommendation: 89% (344/385) for 'stay at home and observe', 75% (232/310) for 'school attendance'. CONCLUSIONS: Usage of www.coronabambini.ch was generally high in areas where it was developed and promoted. Certain patterns in epidemiology and adherence to public health policy could be depicted but selection bias was difficult to measure showing the potential and challenges of digital decision support as public health tools.

Did the pandemic influence telehealth use among Swiss emergency department patients? A sequential explanatory study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore pandemic telehealth use among walk-in emergency department (ED) patients at Bern University Hospital. DESIGN: As in sequential explanatory designs, quantitative data were collected first. To explain the quantitative results, telehealth use was explored qualitatively using an interview guide informed by the quantitative results. SETTING: The University Hospital of Bern ED designed a follow-up cross-sectional study (baseline done in 2019) to assess telehealth use among ED walk-in patients during the pandemic (2021). PARTICIPANTS: We included participants of all age groups that had consented to a follow-up qualitative study and also ensured a gender and age balance. We aimed for data saturation that was achieved by the seventh key informant. A total of 11 key informants took part in the study. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged, namely: (1) telehealth use means the use of a telephone for many; (2) telehealth has both remits and limits; and (3) perceived future telehealth opportunities and threats. CONCLUSION: The pandemic seems not to have increased telehealth use among walk-in ED patients. The slight increase observed in telehealth use among women seems related to the use of the COVID-19 app from trusted sites like the Federal Office of Public Health. Telehealth emerged as having remits, limits, opportunities and threats. The human factor preference emerged as very important to all key informants. The fear that telehealth threatens the human factor cannot be over emphasised. The telephone remains the biggest telehealth modality among Swiss ED walk-in patients.

Publication activities relating to digital teaching and learning in the GMS Journal for Medical Education - a descriptive analysis (1984-2020).

Aims and objectives: Digital teaching, learning and assessment have been part of medical education and continuing education for decades. The objective of this review paper is to highlight developments and perspectives in these areas in the GMS Journal for Medical Education (GMS JME). Methodology: In the spring of 2020, we conducted a systematic literature search of the Journal for Medical Education (JME) and analysed the articles with regard to different categories such as article type, digital tools used or mode of data collection. Results: Of the 132 articles analysed, 78 were digital interventions (53 of which were exploratory-descriptive), 28 were project descriptions, 16 were surveys of needs or equipment and 10 were concept papers. About one-third of the studies and project reports each dealt with virtual patients or case-based learning, whereas no articles were published on trends such as serious games or virtual reality. Overall, our analysis shows that in many respects, the studies on digital teaching were more broadly based, especially between 2006 and 2010, after which this trend tended to decline again. Conclusions: Our analysis shows that publications in the JME consider some key aspects of digital teaching in medical education and continuing education, such as educational videos or virtual patients. The variability of information and methods of presentation advocate the use of guidelines to optimise the quality of scientific papers. Furthermore, clues for future research topics and experimental study designs are identified.

Effectiveness and Utility of Virtual Reality Simulation as an Educational Tool for Safe Performance of COVID-19 Diagnostics: Prospective, Randomized Pilot Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although the proper use of hygiene and personal protective equipment (PPE) is paramount for preventing the spread of diseases such as COVID-19, health care personnel have been shown to use incorrect techniques for donning/doffing of PPE and hand hygiene, leading to a large number of infections among health professionals. Education and training are difficult owing to the social distancing restrictions in place, shortages of PPE and testing material, and lack of evidence on optimal training. Virtual reality (VR) simulation can offer a multisensory, 3-D, fully immersive, and safe training opportunity that addresses these obstacles. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to explore the short- and long-term effectiveness of a fully immersive VR simulation versus a traditional learning method regarding a COVID-19-related skill set and media-specific variables influencing training outcomes. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized controlled pilot study on medical students (N=29; intervention VR training, n=15, vs control video-based instruction, n=14) to compare the performance of hand disinfection, nasopharyngeal swab taking, and donning/doffing of PPE before and after training and 1 month later as well as variables of media use. RESULTS: Both groups performed significantly better after training, with the effect sustained over one month. After training, the VR group performed significantly better in taking a nasopharyngeal swab, scoring a median of 14 out of 17 points (IQR 13-15) versus 12 out of 17 points (IQR 11-14) in the control group, P=.03. With good immersion and tolerability of the VR simulation, satisfaction was significantly higher in the VR group compared to the control group (median score of User Satisfaction Evaluation Questionnaire 27/30, IQR 23-28, vs 22/30, IQR 20-24, in the control group; P=.01). CONCLUSIONS: VR simulation was at least as effective as traditional learning methods in training medical students while providing benefits regarding user satisfaction. These results add to the growing body of evidence that VR is a useful tool for acquiring simple and complex clinical skills.