Evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound for cholelithiasis and cholecystitis in a canadian emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: Cholelithiasis and cholecystitis are common conditions that frequently require patients to come to the Emergency Department (ED) and undergo diagnostic imaging. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the test characteristics of emergency physician performed point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) to diagnose cholelithiasis and cholecystitis in a Canadian ED. METHODS: A health records review was performed on all ED patients > 17 years of age for whom POCUS was performed to diagnose cholelithiasis and cholecystitis in a Canadian academic ED over a 5-year period. The sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios were calculated. The gold standard used for diagnosis was pathology, laparoscopy, radiology-performed comprehensive ultrasonography, followed by computed tomography scans. RESULTS: A total of 577 patients were included in the study. The sensitivity and specificity of POCUS to diagnose cholelithiasis was 95.2% (95% CI 91.1-97.8%) and 93.1% (95% CI 90.1-95.4%). The positive and negative likelihood ratios for POCUS to diagnose cholelithiasis were found to be 14 and 0.05; the negative predictive value was 97.6% (95% CI 95.5-98.7%). The sensitivity and specificity of POCUS to diagnose cholecystitis was 67.1% (95% CI 54.9-77.9%) and 97.6% (95% CI 95.9-98.8%). The positive and negative likelihood ratios for POCUS to diagnose cholecystitis were found to be 28 and 0.34; the negative predictive value was 95.6% (95% CI 93.9-96.8%). CONCLUSION: POCUS is reliable for the diagnosis of cholelithiasis and for ruling in cholecystitis. In cases where POCUS is negative or indeterminate for cholecystitis, further imaging should be obtained as clinical suspicion warrants.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: La cholélithiase et la cholécystite sont des troubles médicaux courants qui obligent fréquemment les patients à se rendre aux urgences et subir une imagerie diagnostique. Le but de cette étude était d'évaluer les caractéristiques des tests de l'échographie au point d'intervention (POCUS) effectuée par des médecins urgentistes pour diagnostiquer la cholélithiase et la cholécystite dans une urgence canadienne. MéTHODES: Un examen des dossiers médicaux a été effectué sur tous les patients des services d'urgence, âgés de plus de 17 ans pour lesquels POCUS a été réalisée pour diagnostiquer la cholélithiase et la cholécystite dans un service d'urgence universitaire canadien sur une période de 5 ans. La sensibilité, la spécificité, les valeurs prédictives et les rapports de vraisemblance ont été calculés. L'étalon-or utilisé pour le diagnostic était la pathologie, la laparoscopie, l'échographie complète réalisée par radiologie, suivie de la tomodensitométrie. RéSULTATS: Au total, 577 patients ont été inclus dans l'étude. La sensibilité et la spécificité de POCUS pour diagnostiquer la cholélithiase étaient de 95.2% (IC 95% 91.1­97.8%) et 93.1% (IC 95% 90.1­95.4%). Les rapports de vraisemblance positifs et négatifs pour POCUS pour diagnostiquer la cholélithiase se sont révélés à 14 et 0.05; la valeur prédictive négative était de 97.6% (IC à 95% 95.5­98.7%). La sensibilité et la spécificité de POCUS pour diagnostiquer la cholécystite étaient de 67,1% (IC à 95% 54.9­77.9%) et de 97.6% (IC à 95% 95.9­98.8%). Les rapports de vraisemblance positifs et négatifs pour POCUS pour diagnostiquer la cholécystite se sont révélés à 28 et 0.34; la valeur prédictive négative était de 95.6% (IC à 9.5% 93.9­96.8%). CONCLUSION: POCUS est fiable pour le diagnostic de la cholélithiase et de la cholécystite. Dans les cas où le POCUS est négatif ou indéterminé pour la cholécystite, une imagerie supplémentaire doit être obtenue en cas de suspicion clinique.

A Review of Hypertension and Diabetes Protocols for Medical Service Trips (MSTs) in Latin America and the Caribbean.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension and diabetes are among the most common chronic conditions that may be managed on short-term, primary care medical service trips (MSTs) in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), but the quality of patient care delivered remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study summarizes protocols that Western volunteer clinicians use in managing these patients, and highlights their commonalities, differences, and potential limitations. METHODS: A systematic web search was used to identify organizations operating MSTs in LAC. Organizations were contacted by email or through their websites to obtain clinical protocols intended for use on their brigades. These protocols were qualitatively analyzed, and recommendations were categorized into clinical assessment, non-pharmacologic recommendations, and pharmacologic recommendations. FINDINGS: Two hundred twenty-five organizations were identified and contacted, and protocols were obtained for 20 of these. Eleven (55%) of these protocols discussed hypertension, and 10 (50%) discussed diabetes. Only one protocol provided any literature support for its recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The analyzed protocols may give insight into context-specific realities of practice on MSTs, but they often neglected key aspects of clinical management that are emphasized in international guidelines. This study is an initial step in clinical guidelines development for MSTs operating in LAC.

A Systematic Review of Waterborne Disease Outbreaks Associated with Small Non-Community Drinking Water Systems in Canada and the United States.

BACKGROUND: Reports of outbreaks in Canada and the United States (U.S.) indicate that approximately 50% of all waterborne diseases occur in small non-community drinking water systems (SDWSs). Summarizing these investigations to identify the factors and conditions contributing to outbreaks is needed in order to help prevent future outbreaks. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to: 1) identify published reports of waterborne disease outbreaks involving SDWSs in Canada and the U.S. since 1970; 2) summarize reported factors contributing to outbreaks, including water system characteristics and events surrounding the outbreaks; and 3) identify terminology used to describe SDWSs in outbreak reports. METHODS: Three electronic databases and grey literature sources were searched for outbreak reports involving SDWSs throughout Canada and the U.S. from 1970 to 2014. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data related to water system characteristics and outbreak events. The data were analyzed descriptively with 'outbreak' as the unit of analysis. RESULTS: From a total of 1,995 citations, we identified 50 relevant articles reporting 293 unique outbreaks. Failure of an existing water treatment system (22.7%) and lack of water treatment (20.2%) were the leading causes of waterborne outbreaks in SDWSs. A seasonal trend was observed with 51% of outbreaks occurring in summer months (p<0.001). There was large variation in terminology used to describe SDWSs, and a large number of variables were not reported, including water source and whether water treatment was used (missing in 31% and 66% of reports, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: More consistent reporting and descriptions of SDWSs in future outbreak reports are needed to understand the epidemiology of these outbreaks and to inform the development of targeted interventions for SDWSs. Additional monitoring of water systems that are used on a seasonal or infrequent basis would be worthwhile to inform future protection efforts.