Search

Background: The Geriatric Emergency Department (ED) Guidelines recommend screening older patients for need for evaluation by geriatric medicine, physical therapy (PT), and occupational therapy (OT), but explicit evidence that geriatric screening changes care compared to physician gestalt is lacking. We assessed changes in multidisciplinary consultation after implementation of standardized geriatric screening in the ED., Methods: Retrospective single-site observational cohort of older adult ED patients from 2019 to 2023 with three time periods: (1) preimplementation, (2) implementation of geriatric screening, and (3) postimplementation. Geriatric, PT, and OT consultations/referrals were available during all time periods. Descriptive analysis was stratified by disposition: discharged, observation and discharged, observation and hospital admission, and hospital admission. The independent variable was completion of three geriatric screening tools by ED nurses. The dependent variable was consultation and/or referral to geriatrics, PT, and OT. Secondary outcomes were disposition, ED revisits, and 30-day rehospitalizations., Results: There were 57,775 qualifying ED visits of patients age ≥ 65 years during the time periods: implementation increased geriatric screening from 0.5% to 63.2%; postimplementation, discharge patients who received screening had more consultations/referrals to geriatrics (1.5% vs. 0.4%), PT (7.9% vs. 1.9%), and OT (6.5% vs. 1.2%) compared to unscreened patients. Patients observed and then discharged had more consultations/referrals to geriatrics (15.1% vs. 11.3%), PT (74.1% vs. 64.5%), and OT (65.7% vs. 56.5%). Admitted patients had no change in consultation rates. Geriatric screening was not associated with a change in 7-day ED revisits for discharged patients but was associated with decreased revisits for patients discharged from observation (11.6% vs. 42.9%, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Geriatric screening was associated with increased consultations/referrals to geriatrics, PT, and OT in the ED and ED observation unit. This suggests that geriatric screening changes ED care for older adults., (© 2024 The Author(s). Academic Emergency Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Introduction: Geriatric emergency department (ED) guidelines emphasize timely identification of delirium. This article updates previous diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews of history, physical examination, laboratory testing, and ED screening instruments for the diagnosis of delirium as well as test-treatment thresholds for ED delirium screening., Methods: We conducted a systematic review to quantify the diagnostic accuracy of approaches to identify delirium. Studies were included if they described adults aged 60 or older evaluated in the ED setting with an index test for delirium compared with an acceptable criterion standard for delirium. Data were extracted and studies were reviewed for risk of bias. When appropriate, we conducted a meta-analysis and estimated delirium screening thresholds., Results: Full-text review was performed on 55 studies and 27 were included in the current analysis. No studies were identified exploring the accuracy of findings on history or laboratory analysis. While two studies reported clinicians accurately rule in delirium, clinician gestalt is inadequate to rule out delirium. We report meta-analysis on three studies that quantified the accuracy of the 4 A's Test (4AT) to rule in (pooled positive likelihood ratio [LR+] 7.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.7-20.7) and rule out (pooled negative likelihood ratio [LR-] 0.18, 95% CI 0.09-0.34) delirium. We also conducted meta-analysis of two studies that quantified the accuracy of the Abbreviated Mental Test-4 (AMT-4) and found that the pooled LR+ (4.3, 95% CI 2.4-7.8) was lower than that observed for the 4AT, but the pooled LR- (0.22, 95% CI 0.05-1) was similar. Based on one study the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) is the superior instrument to rule in delirium. The calculated test threshold is 2% and the treatment threshold is 11%., Conclusions: The quantitative accuracy of history and physical examination to identify ED delirium is virtually unexplored. The 4AT has the largest quantity of ED-based research. Other screening instruments may more accurately rule in or rule out delirium. If the goal is to rule in delirium then the CAM-ICU or brief CAM or modified CAM for the ED are superior instruments, although the accuracy of these screening tools are based on single-center studies. To rule out delirium, the Delirium Triage Screen is superior based on one single-center study., (© 2024 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Objectives: This study sought to explore and externally validate the Carpenter instrument's efficacy in predicting postdischarge fall risk among older adults admitted to the emergency department (ED) for reasons other than falls or related injuries., Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted on 779 patients aged ≥ 65 years from a tertiary hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, who were monitored for up to 6 months post-ED hospitalization. The Carpenter instrument, which evaluates the four risk factors nonhealing foot sores, self-reported depression, inability to self-clip toenails, and prior falls, was utilized to assess fall risk. Follow-up by telephone occurred at 30, 90, and 180 days to identify falls and mortality. Fine-Gray models estimated the predictive power of Carpenter instrument for future falls, considering death as a competing event and sociodemographic factors, frail status, and clinical measures as confounders., Results: Among 779 patients, 68 (9%) experienced a fall within 180 days post-ED admission, and 88 (11%) died. The majority were male (54%), with a mean age of 79 years. Upon utilizing the Carpenter score, those with a higher fall risk (≥2 points) displayed more comorbidities, greater frailty, and increased clinical severity at baseline. Regression analyses showed that every additional point on the Carpenter score increased the hazard of falls by 73%. Two primary contributors to its predictive potential were identified: a history of falls in the preceding year and an inability to self-clip toenails. However, the instrument's discriminative accuracy was suboptimal, with an area under the curve of 0.62., Conclusions: While the Carpenter instrument associated with a higher 6-month postadmission fall risk among older adults post-ED visit, its accuracy for individual patient decision making was limited. Given the significant impact of falls on health outcomes and health care costs, refining risk assessment tools remains essential. Future research should focus on enhancing these assessments and devising targeted proactive strategies., (© 2024 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

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]., (© 2024 The Authors. Academic Emergency Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are gaining favor in clinical and research settings given their ability to capture a patient's symptom burden, functional status, and quality of life. Our objective in this systematic review was to summarize studies including PROMs assessed among older adults (age ≥ 65 years) after seeking emergency care., Methods: With the assistance of a medical librarian, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science-Core Collection, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception through June 2023 for studies in which older adult ED patients had PROMs assessed in the post-emergency care time period. Independent reviewers performed title/abstract review, full-text screening, data extraction, study characteristic summarization, and risk-of-bias (RoB) assessments., Results: Our search strategy yielded 5153 studies of which 56 met study inclusion criteria. Within included studies, 304 unique PROM assessments were performed at varying time points after the ED visit, including 61 unique PROMs. The most commonly measured domain was physical function, assessed within the majority of studies (47/56; 84%), with measures including PROMs such as Katz activities of daily living (ADLs), instrumental ADLs, and the Barthel Index. PROMs were most frequently assessed at 1-3 months after an ED visit (113/304; 37%), greater than 6 months (91/304; 30%), and 4-6 months (88/304; 29%), with very few PROMs assessed within 1 month of the ED visit (12/304; 4%). Of the 16 interventional studies, two were determined to have a low RoB, four had moderate RoB, nine had high RoB, and one had insufficient information. Of the 40 observational studies, 10 were determined to be of good quality, 20 of moderate quality, and 10 of poor quality., Conclusions: PROM assessments among older adults following an ED visit frequently measured physical function, with very few assessments occurring within the first 1 month after an ED visit., (© 2024 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Objective: Implementation of evidence-based care processes (EBP) into the emergency department (ED) is challenging and there are only a few studies of real-world use of theory-based implementation frameworks. We report final implementation results and sustainability of an EBP geriatric screening program in the ED using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)., Methods: The EBP involved nurses screening older patients for delirium (Delirium Triage Screen), fall risk (4-Stage Balance Test), and vulnerability (Identification of Seniors at Risk score) with subsequent appropriate referrals to physicians, therapy specialists, or social workers. The proportions of screened adults ≥65 years old were tracked monthly. Outcomes are reported January 2021-December 2022. Barriers encountered were classified according to CFIR. Implementation strategies were classified according to the CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC)., Results: Implementation strategies increased geriatric screening from 5% to 68%. This did not meet our prespecified goal of 80%. Change was sustained through several COVID-19 waves. Inner setting barriers included culture and implementation climate. Initially, the ED was treated as a single inner setting, but we found different cultures and uptake between ED units, including night versus day shifts. Characteristics of individuals barriers included high levels of staff turnover in both clinical and administrative roles and very low self-efficacy from stress and staff turnover. Initial attempts with individualized audit and feedback were not successful in improving self-efficacy and may have caused moral injury. Adjusting feedback to a team/unit level approach with unitwide stretch goals worked better. Identifying early adopters and conducting on-shift education increased uptake. Lessons learned regarding ED culture, implementation in interconnected health systems, and rapid cycle process improvement are reported., Conclusions: The pandemic exacerbated barriers to implementation in the ED. Cognizance of a large ED as a sum of smaller units and using the CFIR model resulted in improvements., (© 2023 The Authors. Academic Emergency Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Background: A short course of corticosteroids is among the management strategies considered by specialists for the treatment of vestibular neuritis (VN). We conducted an umbrella review (systematic review of systematic reviews) to summarize the evidence of corticosteroids use for the treatment of VN., Methods: We included systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that evaluated the effects of corticosteroids compared to placebo or usual care in adult patients with acute VN. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened in duplicate. The quality of reviews was assessed with the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment was used to rate certainty of evidence. No meta-analysis was performed., Results: From 149 titles, five systematic reviews were selected for quality assessment, and two reviews were of higher methodological quality and were included. These two reviews included 12 individual studies and 660 patients with VN. In a meta-analysis of two RCTs including a total of 50 patients, the use of corticosteroids (compared to placebo) was associated with higher complete caloric recovery (risk ratio 2.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32 to 6.00, low certainty). It is very uncertain whether this translates into clinical improvement as shown by the imprecise effect estimates for outcomes such as patient-reported vertigo or patient-reported dizziness disability. There was a wide CI for the outcome of dizziness handicap score (one study, 30 patients, 20.9 points in corticosteroids group vs. 15.8 points in placebo, mean difference +5.1, 95% CI -8.09 to +18.29, very low certainty). Higher rates of minor adverse effects for those receiving corticosteroids were reported, but the certainty in this evidence was very low., Conclusions: There is limited evidence to support the use of corticosteroids for the treatment of VN in the emergency department., (© 2022 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

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., (This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including chlamydia, gonorrhea, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) pose a significant health burden in adolescents. Many adolescents receiving care in the emergency department (ED) are in need of testing, regardless of their chief complaint. Our objective was to determine whether an electronic, risk-based STI screening program in our ED was associated with an increase in STI testing among at-risk adolescents., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of patient outcomes in our pediatric ED after integrating an Audio-enhanced Computer-Assisted Self-Interview (ACASI) as standard of care. It obtained a focused sexual history and generated STI testing recommendations. Patient answers and testing recommendations were integrated in real-time into the electronic health record. Patients who tested positive received treatment according to our standard-of-care practices. All patients 15-21 years of age were asked to complete this on an opt-out basis, regardless of the reason for their ED visit. Exclusions included those unable to independently use a tablet, severe illness, sexual assault, or non-English speaking. Our primary outcome was to describe STI-testing recommendations and test results among ACASI participants. We also compared STI testing between ACASI participants and those who were eligible but did not use it., Results: In the first 13 months, 28.9% (1788/6194) of eligible adolescents completed the ACASI and 44.2% (321/790) accepted recommended STI testing. The mean age of participants was 16.6 ± 1.3 years, with 65.4% (1169) being female. Gonorrhea/chlamydia testing was significantly higher among participants vs. non-participants (20.1% [359/1788] vs 4.8% [212/4406]; p < 0.0001). The proportion of positive STI tests was similar between the two groups: 24.8% (89/359) vs. 24.5% (52/212; p = 0.94) were positive for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea, while 0.6% (2/354) participants vs. 0% non-participants (p > 0.99) were positive for HIV. Among participants whose chief complaints were unlikely to be related to STIs but accepted recommended testing, 20.9% (37/177) were positive for gonorrhea or chlamydia., Conclusions: Our program facilitated STI testing in the ED and identified many adolescents with STIs, even when their ED complaint was for unrelated reasons. More rigorous implementation is needed to determine the impact of deployment of ACASI to all eligible adolescents and addressing barriers to accepting STI testing recommendations., (© 2022 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Objective: Computed tomography (CT) imaging is frequently obtained for recurrent abdominal pain after a prior emergency department (ED) evaluation. We evaluate the utility of repeat CT imaging following an indeterminate index CT in low-risk abdominal pain adult ED patients., Methods: An electronic search was designed for the patient-intervention-control-outcome-timing (PICOT) question: (P) adult patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated atraumatic abdominal pain presenting to the ED after an index-negative CT within 12 months; (I) repeat CT versus (C) no repeat CT; for (O) abdominal surgery or other invasive procedure, mortality, identification of potentially life-threatening diagnosis, and hospital and intensive care unit admission rates; and return ED visit (T), all within 30 days. Four reviewers independently selected evidence for inclusion and then synthesized the results around the most prevalent themes of repeat CT timing, diagnostic yield, ionizing radiation exposure, and predictors of repetitive imaging., Results: Although 637 articles and abstracts were identified, no direct evidence was found. Thirteen documents were synthesized as indirect evidence. None of the indirect evidence defined a low-risk subset of abdominal pain nor did investigators describe whether reimaging occurred for complaints similar to the initial ED evaluation. Included studies did not describe the index CT findings and some reported explanatory findings noted on the original CT for which repeat CTs might have been indicated. The time frame for a repeat CT ranged from hours to 1 year. The frequency of repeat CTs (2%-47%) varied across studies as did the yield of imaging to alter downstream clinical decision making (range = 5%-67%)., Conclusion: Due to the absence of direct evidence our scoping review is unable to provide high-quality evidence-based recommendations upon which to confidently base an imaging practice guideline. There is no evidence to support or refute performing a CT for low-risk recurrent abdominal pain., (© 2021 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Background: Recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED) might represent an opportunity for screening of depression and/or anxiety., Methods: We systematically searched five databases for studies evaluating the effect of screening for depression and/or anxiety in ED patients with recurrent and undifferentiated abdominal pain. Given paucity of direct evidence, we also searched for indirect evidence including studies that assessed prevalence of depression and/or anxiety in EDs (not necessarily recurrent abdominal pain), diagnostic accuracy of screening tools, effectiveness of screening in other settings, and outcomes such as repeat ED visits of patients with abdominal pain who were screened in the ED. Two methodologists evaluated certainty in the evidence using the GRADE approach., Results: A total of 4,337 citations were reviewed, and zero studies were found on the effect of screening in patients with recurrent and undifferentiated abdominal pain in the ED. A total of 35 studies were included as relevant indirect evidence. In studies of ED patients with abdominal pain, depression ranged from 10% to 29%, while anxiety ranged from 18% to 50%. False positives appear to be an issue given relatively low specificity of screening tools. One randomized trial including ED patients with vague symptoms evaluated the effect of depression screening on a composite outcome of depression recognition, psychiatric consultation, or referral by the emergency physician (risk ratio = 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.49 to 4.53, very low certainty). One study reported that patients with undifferentiated abdominal pain who screened positive for depression have had increased ED recidivism (odds ratio = 3.17, 95% CI = 1.14 to 8.85, very low certainty)., Conclusions: We were unable to identify any evidence that confirms that depression or anxiety screening in ED patients with recurrent and undifferentiated abdominal pain improves outcomes or changes management downstream., (© 2021 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Objective: To validate the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) for prediction of 1-year all-cause mortality in the emergency department (ED) and compare its performance to the Emergency Severity Index (ESI)., Methods: Prospective cohort study at the ED of a tertiary care center in Northwestern Switzerland. All patients aged ≥65 years were included from March 18 to May 20, 2019, after informed consent. Frailty status was assessed using CFS, excluding level 9 (palliative). Acuity level was assessed using ESI. Both CFS and ESI were adjusted for age, sex and presenting condition in multivariable logistic regression. Prognostic performance was assessed for discrimination and calibration separately. Estimates were internally validated by Bootstrapping. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) was determined for all levels of CFS., Results: In the final study population of 2191 patients, 1-year all-cause mortality was 17% (n = 372). RMST values ranged from 219 days for CFS 8 to 365 days for CFS 1. The adjusted CFS model had an area under receiver operating characteristic of 0.767 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.741-0.793), compared to 0.703 (95% CI: 0.673-0.732) for the adjusted ESI model., Conclusion: The CFS predicts 1-year all-cause mortality for older ED patients and predicts survival time in a graded manner. The CFS is superior to the ESI when adjusted for age, sex, and presenting condition., (© 2022 The Authors. Academic Emergency Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

This second Guideline for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE-2) from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine is on the topic "low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department." The 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 four priority questions for adult emergency department patients with low-risk, recurrent, undifferentiated abdominal pain. The intended population includes adults with multiple similar presentations of abdominal signs and symptoms recurring over a period of months or years. The panel reached the following recommendations: (1) if a prior negative computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis (CTAP) has been performed within 12 months, there is insufficient evidence to accurately identify populations in whom repeat CTAP imaging can be safely avoided or routinely recommended; (2) if CTAP with IV contrast is negative, we suggest against ultrasound unless there is concern for pelvic or biliary pathology; (3) we suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety may be performed during the ED evaluation; and (4) we suggest an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The GRACE-2 writing group developed clinically relevant questions to address the care of adult patients with low-risk, recurrent, previously undifferentiated abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED). Four patient-intervention-comparison-outcome-time (PICOT) questions were developed by consensus of the writing group, who performed a systematic review of the literature and then synthesized direct and indirect evidence to formulate recommendations, following GRADE methodology. The writing group found that despite the commonality and relevance of these questions in emergency care, the quantity and quality of evidence were very limited, and even fundamental definitions of the population and outcomes of interest are lacking. Future research opportunities include developing precise and clinically relevant definitions of low-risk, recurrent, undifferentiated abdominal pain and determining the scope of the existing populations in terms of annual national ED visits for this complaint, costs of care, and patient and provider preferences., (© 2022 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Background: The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Board of Directors convened a task force to elucidate the current state of workforce, operational, and educational issues being faced by academic medical centers related to advanced practice providers (APPs). The task force surveyed academic emergency department (ED) chairs and residency program directors (PDs)., Methods: The survey was distributed to the Association of Academic Chairs of Emergency Medicine (AACEM)-member chairs and their respective residency PDs in 2021. We surveyed 125 chairs with their self-identified PDs. The survey sampled hiring, state-independent practice laws, scope of practice, teaching and supervision, training opportunities, delegation of procedures between physician learners and APPs, and perceptions of the impact on resident and medical student education., Results: Of the AACEM-member chairs identified, 73% responded and 47% of PDs responded. Most (98%) employ either physician assistants or nurse practitioners. Among responding departments, 86% report APPs working in fast-track settings, 80% work in the main ED, and 54% work in the waiting room. In 44% of departments, APPs and residents evaluate patients concurrently, and 2% of respondents reported that APPs manage high-acuity patients without attending involvement. Two-thirds of chairs believe that APPs contribute positively to the quality of patient care, while 44% believe that APPs contribute to the academic environment. One-third of PDs believe that the presence of APPs interferes with resident education. Although 75% of PDs believe that residents require training to work effectively with APPs in the ED, almost half (49%) report zero hours of training around APP supervision or collaborative skills., Conclusions: APPs are ubiquitous across academic EDs. Future research is required for academic ED leaders to balance physician and APP deployment across the academic ED within the context of patient care, resident education, institutional resources, professional development opportunities for APP staff, and standardization of APP EM training., (© 2021 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Background: Clinical decision support (CDS) may improve the postneuroimaging management of children with mild traumatic brain injuries (mTBI) and intracranial injuries. While the CHIIDA score has been proposed for this purpose, a more sensitive risk model may have broader use. Consequently, this study's objectives were to: (1) develop a new risk model with improved sensitivity compared to the CHIIDA model and (2) externally validate the new model and CHIIDA model in a multicenter data set., Methods: We analyzed children ≤18 years old with mTBI and intracranial injuries included in the PECARN head injury data set (2004-2006). We used binary recursive partitioning to predict the composite outcome of neurosurgical intervention, intubation for > 24 h due to TBI, or death due to TBI. The new model was externally validated in a separate data set that included children treated at any one of six centers from 2006 to 2019., Results: Based on 839 patients from the PECARN data set, a new risk model, the KIIDS-TBI model, was developed that incorporated imaging (e.g., midline shift) and clinical (e.g., Glasgow Coma Scale score) findings. Based on the model-predicted probability of the composite outcome, three cutoffs were evaluated to classify patients as "high risk" for level of care decisions. In the external validation data set consisting of 1,630 patients, the most conservative cutoff (i.e., any predictor present) identified 119 of 119 children with the composite outcome (sensitivity = 100%), but had the lowest specificity (26.3%). The other two decision-making cutoffs had worse sensitivity (94.1%-96.6%) but improved specificity (67.4%-81.3%). The CHIIDA model lacked the most conservative cutoff and otherwise showed the same or slightly worse performance compared to the other two cutoffs., Conclusions: The KIIDS-TBI model has high sensitivity and moderate specificity for risk stratifying children with mTBI and intracranial injuries. Use of this CDS tool may help improve the safe, resource-efficient management of this important patient population., (© 2021 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Background: Although falls are common, costly, and often preventable, emergency department (ED)-initiated fall screening and prevention efforts are rare. The Geriatric Emergency Medicine Applied Research Falls core (GEAR-Falls) was created to identify existing research gaps and to prioritize future fall research foci., Methods: GEAR's 49 transdisciplinary stakeholders included patients, geriatricians, ED physicians, epidemiologists, health services researchers, and nursing scientists. We derived relevant clinical fall ED questions and summarized the applicable research evidence, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews. The highest-priority research foci were identified at the GEAR Consensus Conference., Results: We identified two clinical questions for our review (1) fall prevention interventions (32 studies) and (2) risk stratification and falls care plan (19 studies). For (1) 21 of 32 (66%) of interventions were a falls risk screening assessment and 15 of 21 (71%) of these were combined with an exercise program or physical therapy. For (2) 11 fall screening tools were identified, but none were feasible and sufficiently accurate for ED patients. For both questions, the most frequently reported study outcome was recurrent falls, but various process and patient/clinician-centered outcomes were used. Outcome ascertainment relied on self-reported falls in 18 of 32 (56%) studies for (1) and nine of 19 (47%) studies for (2)., Conclusion: Harmonizing definitions, research methods, and outcomes is needed for direct comparison of studies. The need to identify ED-appropriate fall risk assessment tools and role of emergency medical services (EMS) personnel persists. Multifactorial interventions, especially involving exercise, are more efficacious in reducing recurrent falls, but more studies are needed to compare appropriate bundle combinations. GEAR prioritizes five research priorities: (1) EMS role in improving fall-related outcomes, (2) identifying optimal ED fall assessment tools, (3) clarifying patient-prioritized fall interventions and outcomes, (4) standardizing uniform fall ascertainment and measured outcomes, and (5) exploring ideal intervention components., (© 2021 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

This first Guideline for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE-1) from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine is on the topic: Recurrent, Low-risk Chest Pain in the Emergency Department. The multidisciplinary guideline panel used The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding eight priority questions for adult patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain and have derived the following evidence based recommendations: (1) for those >3 h chest pain duration we suggest a single, high-sensitivity troponin below a validated threshold to reasonably exclude acute coronary syndrome (ACS) within 30 days; (2) for those with a normal stress test within the previous 12 months, we do not recommend repeat routine stress testing as a means to decrease rates of major adverse cardiac events at 30 days; (3) insufficient evidence to recommend hospitalization (either standard inpatient admission or observation stay) versus discharge as a strategy to mitigate major adverse cardiac events within 30 days; (4) for those with non-obstructive (<50% stenosis) coronary artery disease (CAD) on prior angiography within 5 years, we suggest referral for expedited outpatient testing as warranted rather than admission for inpatient evaluation; (5) for those with no occlusive CAD (0% stenosis) on prior angiography within 5 years, we recommend referral for expedited outpatient testing as warranted rather than admission for inpatient evaluation; (6) for those with a prior coronary computed tomographic angiography within the past 2 years with no coronary stenosis, we suggest no further diagnostic testing other than a single, normal high-sensitivity troponin below a validated threshold to exclude ACS within that 2 year time frame; (7) we suggest the use of depression and anxiety screening tools as these might have an effect on healthcare use and return emergency department (ED) visits; and (8) we suggest referral for anxiety or depression management, as this might have an impact on healthcare use and return ED visits., (© 2021 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Background: Older adult delirium is often unrecognized in the emergency department (ED), yet the most compelling research questions to overcome knowledge-to-practice deficits remain undefined. The Geriatric Emergency care Applied Research (GEAR) Network was organized to identify and prioritize delirium clinical questions., Methods: GEAR identified and engaged 49 transdisciplinary stakeholders including emergency physicians, geriatricians, nurses, social workers, pharmacists, and patient advocates. Adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews, clinical questions were derived, medical librarian electronic searches were conducted, and applicable research evidence was synthesized for ED delirium detection, prevention, and management. The scoping review served as the foundation for a consensus conference to identify the highest priority research foci., Results: In the scoping review, 27 delirium detection "instruments" were described in 48 ED studies and used variable criterion standards with the result of delirium prevalence ranging from 6% to 38%. Clinician gestalt was the most common "instrument" evaluated with sensitivity ranging from 0% to 81% and specificity from 65% to 100%. For delirium management, 15 relevant studies were identified, including one randomized controlled trial. Some intervention studies targeted clinicians via education and others used clinical pathways. Three medications were evaluated to reduce or prevent ED delirium. No intervention consistently prevented or treated delirium. After reviewing the scoping review results, the GEAR stakeholders identified ED delirium prevention interventions not reliant on additional nurse or physician effort as the highest priority research., Conclusions: Transdisciplinary stakeholders prioritize ED delirium prevention studies that are not reliant on health care worker tasks instead of alternative research directions such as defining etiologic delirium phenotypes to target prevention or intervention strategies., (© 2020 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Objective: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged as a global pandemic in early 2020 with rapidly evolving approaches to diagnosing the clinical illness called coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The primary objective of this scoping review is to synthesize current research of the diagnostic accuracy of history, physical examination, routine laboratory tests, real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), immunology tests, and computed tomography (CT) for the emergency department (ED) diagnosis of COVID-19. Secondary objectives included a synopsis of diagnostic biases likely with current COVID-19 research as well as corresponding implications of false-negative and false-positive results for clinicians and investigators., Methods: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR)-adherent synthesis of COVID-19 diagnostic accuracy through May 5, 2020, was conducted. The search strategy was designed by a medical librarian and included studies indexed by PubMed and Embase since January 2020., Results: A total of 1,907 citations were screened for relevance. Patients without COVID-19 are rarely reported, so specificity and likelihood ratios were generally unavailable. Fever is the most common finding, while hyposmia and hypogeusia appear useful to rule in COVID-19. Cough is not consistently present. Lymphopenia is the mostly commonly reported laboratory abnormality and occurs in over 50% of COVID-19 patients. rRT-PCR is currently considered the COVID-19 criterion standard for most diagnostic studies, but a single test sensitivity ranges from 60% to 78%. Multiple reasons for false-negatives rRT-PCR exist, including sample site tested and disease stage during which sample was obtained. CT may increase COVID-19 sensitivity in conjunction with rRT-PCR, but guidelines for imaging patients most likely to benefit are emerging. IgM and IgG serology levels are undetectable in the first week of COVID-19, but sensitivity (range = 82% to 100%) and specificity (range = 87% to 100%) are promising. Whether detectable COVID-19 antibodies correspond to immunity remains unanswered. Current studies do not adhere to accepted diagnostic accuracy reporting standards and likely report significantly biased results if the same tests were to be applied to general ED populations with suspected COVID-19., Conclusions: With the exception of fever and disorders of smell/taste, history and physical examination findings are unhelpful to distinguish COVID-19 from other infectious conditions that mimic SARS-CoV-2 like influenza. Routine laboratory tests are also nondiagnostic, although lymphopenia is a common finding and other abnormalities may predict severe disease. Although rRT-PCR is the current criterion standard, more inclusive consensus-based criteria will likely emerge because of the high false-negative rate of PCR tests. The role of serology and CT in ED assessments remains undefined., (© 2020 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Background: Dementia is underrecognized in older adult emergency department (ED) patients, which threatens operational efficiency, diagnostic accuracy, and patient satisfaction. The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine geriatric ED guidelines advocate dementia screening using validated instruments., Objectives: The objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of sufficiently brief screening instruments for dementia in geriatric ED patients. A secondary objective was to define an evidence-based pretest probability of dementia based on published research and then estimate disease thresholds at which dementia screening is most appropriate. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017074855)., Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, DARE, and SCOPUS were searched. Studies in which ED patients ages 65 years or older for dementia were included if sufficient details to reconstruct 2 × 2 tables were reported. QUADAS-2 was used to assess study quality with meta-analysis reported if more than one study evaluated the same instrument against the same reference standard. Outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-). To identify test and treatment thresholds, we employed the Pauker-Kassirer method., Results: A total of 1,616 publications were identified, of which 16 underwent full text-review; nine studies were included with a weighted average dementia prevalence of 31% (range, 12%-43%). Eight studies used the Mini Mental Status Examination (MMSE) as the reference standard and the other study used the MMSE in conjunction with a geriatrician's neurocognitive evaluation. Blinding to the index test and/or reference standard was inadequate in four studies. Eight instruments were evaluated in 2,423 patients across four countries in Europe and North America. The Abbreviated Mental Test (AMT-4) most accurately ruled in dementia (LR+ = 7.69 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 3.45-17.10]) while the Brief Alzheimer's Screen most accurately ruled out dementia (LR- = 0.10 [95% CI = 0.02-0.28]). Using estimates of diagnostic accuracy for AMT-4 from this meta-analysis as one trigger for more comprehensive geriatric vulnerability assessments, ED dementia screening benefits patients when the prescreening probability of dementia is between 14 and 36%., Conclusions: ED-based diagnostic research for dementia screening is limited to a few studies using an inadequate criterion standard with variable masking of interpreter's access to the index test and the criterion standard. Standardizing the geriatric ED cognitive assessment methods, measures, and nomenclature is necessary to reduce uncertainties about diagnostic accuracy, reliability, and relevance in this acute care setting. The AMT-4 is currently the most accurate ED screening instrument to increase the probability of dementia and the Brief Alzheimer's Screen is the most accurate to decrease the probability of dementia. Dementia screening as one marker of vulnerability to initiate comprehensive geriatric assessment is warranted based on test-treatment threshold calculations., (© 2018 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Background: Opioids are commonly prescribed in the emergency department (ED) for the treatment of acute pain. Analgesic alternatives are being explored in response to an epidemic of opioid misuse. Low-dose ketamine (LDK) is one opioid alternative for the treatment of acute pain in the ED., Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to quantify whether LDK is an effective and safe opioid alternative for acute pain reduction in adults in the ED setting. (PROSPERO Registration Number CRD42017065303)., Methods: This was a systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing intravenous opioids to LDK for relief of acute pain in the ED. Studies where the control group initially received opioids prior to ketamine were excluded. A research librarian designed the electronic search strategy. Changes in visual analog scale or numeric rating scale pain scales were analyzed to determine the relative effects of LDK and opioids in the treatment of acute pain., Results: Three studies met the criteria for inclusion in this meta-analysis. Compared to pain scale reduction with morphine, ketamine was not inferior (relative reduction = 0.42, 95% confidence interval = -0.70 to 1.54). No severe adverse events were reported in any study, but higher rates of nonsevere adverse events were observed with ketamine., Conclusions: Ketamine is noninferior to morphine for the control of acute pain, indicating that ketamine can be considered as an alternative to opioids for ED short-term pain control., (© 2018 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Background: The Jahnigen Career Development Awards program was launched in 2002 with private funding and transformed into the Grants for Early Medical/Surgical Specialists' Transition to Aging Research (GEMSSTAR) program in 2011 through support from the National Institute on Aging and medical specialty professional societies. The Jahnigen/GEMSSTAR program has provided grants to early career physician-scientists from 10 surgical and related medical specialties to initiate and sustain research careers in the geriatric aspect of their discipline. From 2002 to 2016, there were 20 Jahnigen/GEMSSTAR recipients in emergency medicine (EM). The goal of this investigation was to examine the impact of Jahnigen/GEMSSTAR awards on careers of EM recipients and on development of academic geriatric EM., Methods: We conducted an online survey of the 20 EM recipients from 2002 to 2016 and analyzed their academic productivity, research impact, career trajectory, and contributions to geriatric EM since receiving the award., Results: All 20 Jahnigen/GEMSSTAR scholars completed the survey. Scholars have published a median of 33 peer-reviewed articles (interquartile range [IQR] = 10-97) since the award, with median annual publication rates of 4.5 (IQR = 1.6-7.0). All scholars had h-indices of 6 or more, with a median of 18 (IQR = 9-28). Jahnigen/GEMSSTAR scholars have served as principal investigator (PI) or co-PI on 126 grants since their award, with 90% having served as PI on at least one additional grant and 30% having received National Institutes of Health Career Development Awards. All scholars reported believing that the Jahnigen/GEMSSTAR was very helpful or helpful for career progress. Most (85%) reported ongoing contributions to geriatric EM in research, education, or administration., Conclusions: After the Jahnigen/GEMSSTAR award, EM scholars have been highly academically productive and successful, and the award has been instrumental in their career development. Awardees have been critical to the development of geriatric EM., (© 2018 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Older emergency department patients have high rates of serious illness and injury, are at high risk for side effects and adverse events from treatments and diagnostic tests, and in many cases, have nuanced goals of care in which pursuing the most aggressive approach is not desired. Although some forms of shared decision making (SDM) are commonly practiced by emergency physicians caring for older adults, broader use of SDM in this setting is limited by a lack of knowledge of the types of patients and conditions for which SDM is most helpful and the approaches and tools that can best facilitate this process. We describe a research agenda to generate new knowledge to optimize the use of SDM during the emergency care of older adults., (© 2016 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated as an approach to selecting medical tests and treatments for many situations. The goal of SDM is to ensure that patients are well informed, are meaningfully involved in decisions, and receive treatments that meet their goals and preferences. There is considerable evidence about the tools used to promote SDM, called patient decision aids, and many different measures have been developed to assess the impact of SDM. However, fairly little is known about the applicability of the tools and measures in the emergency department (ED) setting. This article builds on insights from two keynote lectures presented at the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference discussing the state of the science for measurement of SDM and the design of patient decision aids to promote SDM conversations and highlights some key areas for further research to advance SDM in the ED., (© 2016 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

As part of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference, "Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy-relevant Patient-centered Research Agenda," a panel of representatives from the Office of Emergency Care Research, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the American Heart Association, the John A. Hartford Foundation, and the Emergency Care Coordination Center were assembled to discuss funding opportunities for future research in this field. This article summarizes their discussion of funding priorities and examples of successfully funded projects related to shared decision making in emergency medicine., (© 2016 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Shared decision making (SDM) is essential to advancing patient-centered care in emergency medicine. Despite many documented benefits of SDM, prior research has demonstrated persistently low levels of patient engagement by clinicians across many disciplines, including emergency medicine. An effective dissemination and implementation (D&I) framework could be used to alter the process of delivering care and to facilitate SDM in routine clinical emergency medicine practice. Here we outline a research and policy agenda to support the D&I strategy needed to integrate SDM into emergency care., (© 2016 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Shared decision making in emergency medicine has the potential to improve the quality, safety, and outcomes of emergency department (ED) patients. Given that the ED is the gateway to care for patients with a variety of illnesses and injuries and the safety net for patients otherwise unable to access care, shared decision making in the ED is relevant to numerous disciplines and the interests of the United States (U.S.) public. On May 10, 2016 the 16th annual Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) consensus conference, "Shared Decision Making: Development of a Policy-Relevant Patient-Centered Research Agenda" was held in New Orleans, Louisiana. During this one-day conference clinicians, researchers, policy-makers, patient and caregiver representatives, funding agency representatives, trainees, and content experts across many areas of medicine interacted to define high priority areas for research in 1 of 6 domains: 1) diagnostic testing; 2) policy, 3) dissemination/implementation and education, 4) development and testing of shared decision making approaches and tools in practice, 5) palliative care and geriatrics, and 6) vulnerable populations and limited health literacy. This manuscript describes the current state of shared decision making in the ED context, provides an overview of the conference planning process, the aims of the conference, the focus of each respective breakout session, the roles of patient and caregiver representatives and an overview of the conference agenda. The results of this conference published in this issue of AEM provide an essential summary of the future research priorities for shared decision making to increase quality of care and patient-centered outcomes., (© 2016 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Background: Spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is a rare, but serious etiology of headache. The diagnosis of SAH is especially challenging in alert, neurologically intact patients, as missed or delayed diagnosis can be catastrophic., Objectives: The objective was to perform a diagnostic accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis of history, physical examination, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) tests, computed tomography (CT), and clinical decision rules for spontaneous SAH. A secondary objective was to delineate probability of disease thresholds for imaging and lumbar puncture (LP)., Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and research meeting abstracts were searched up to June 2015 for studies of emergency department patients with acute headache clinically concerning for spontaneous SAH. QUADAS-2 was used to assess study quality and, when appropriate, meta-analysis was conducted using random effects models. Outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and positive (LR+) and negative (LR-) likelihood ratios. To identify test and treatment thresholds, we employed the Pauker-Kassirer method with Bernstein test indication curves using the summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy., Results: A total of 5,022 publications were identified, of which 122 underwent full-text review; 22 studies were included (average SAH prevalence = 7.5%). Diagnostic studies differed in assessment of history and physical examination findings, CT technology, analytical techniques used to identify xanthochromia, and criterion standards for SAH. Study quality by QUADAS-2 was variable; however, most had a relatively low risk of biases. A history of neck pain (LR+ = 4.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.2 to 7.6) and neck stiffness on physical examination (LR+ = 6.6; 95% CI = 4.0 to 11.0) were the individual findings most strongly associated with SAH. Combinations of findings may rule out SAH, yet promising clinical decision rules await external validation. Noncontrast cranial CT within 6 hours of headache onset accurately ruled in (LR+ = 230; 95% CI = 6 to 8,700) and ruled out SAH (LR- = 0.01; 95% CI = 0 to 0.04); CT beyond 6 hours had a LR- of 0.07 (95% CI = 0.01 to 0.61). CSF analyses had lower diagnostic accuracy, whether using red blood cell (RBC) count or xanthochromia. At a threshold RBC count of 1,000 × 10(6) /L, the LR+ was 5.7 (95% CI = 1.4 to 23) and LR- was 0.21 (95% CI = 0.03 to 1.7). Using the pooled estimates of diagnostic accuracy and testing risks and benefits, we estimate that LP only benefits CT-negative patients when the pre-LP probability of SAH is on the order of 5%, which corresponds to a pre-CT probability greater than 20%., Conclusions: Less than one in 10 headache patients concerning for SAH are ultimately diagnosed with SAH in recent studies. While certain symptoms and signs increase or decrease the likelihood of SAH, no single characteristic is sufficient to rule in or rule out SAH. Within 6 hours of symptom onset, noncontrast cranial CT is highly accurate, while a negative CT beyond 6 hours substantially reduces the likelihood of SAH. LP appears to benefit relatively few patients within a narrow pretest probability range. With improvements in CT technology and an expanding body of evidence, test thresholds for LP may become more precise, obviating the need for a post-CT LP in more acute headache patients. Existing SAH clinical decision rules await external validation, but offer the potential to identify subsets most likely to benefit from post-CT LP, angiography, or no further testing., (© 2016 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Background: Major gaps persist in the development, validation, and implementation of clinical decision rules (CDRs) for diagnostic imaging., Objectives: The objective of this working group and article was to generate a consensus-based research agenda for the development and implementation of CDRs for diagnostic imaging in the emergency department (ED)., Methods: The authors followed consensus methodology, as outlined by the journal Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM), combining literature review, electronic surveys, telephonic communications, and a modified nominal group technique. Final discussions occurred in person at the 2015 AEM consensus conference., Results: A research agenda was developed, prioritizing the following questions: 1) what are the optimal methods to justify the derivation and validation of diagnostic imaging CDRs, 2) what level of evidence is required before disseminating CDRs for widespread implementation, 3) what defines a successful CDR, 4) how should investigators best compare CDRs to clinical judgment, and 5) what disease states are amenable (and highest priority) to development of CDRs for diagnostic imaging in the ED?, Conclusions: The concepts discussed herein demonstrate the need for further research on CDR development and implementation regarding diagnostic imaging in the ED. Addressing this research agenda should have direct applicability to patients, clinicians, and health care systems., (© 2015 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Diagnostic imaging is integral to the evaluation of many emergency department (ED) patients. However, relatively little effort has been devoted to patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) in emergency diagnostic imaging. This article provides background on this topic and the conclusions of the 2015 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference PCOR work group regarding "Diagnostic Imaging in the Emergency Department: A Research Agenda to Optimize Utilization." The goal was to determine a prioritized research agenda to establish which outcomes related to emergency diagnostic imaging are most important to patients, caregivers, and other key stakeholders and which methods will most optimally engage patients in the decision to undergo imaging. Case vignettes are used to emphasize these concepts as they relate to a patient's decision to seek care at an ED and the care received there. The authors discuss applicable research methods and approaches such as shared decision-making that could facilitate better integration of patient-centered outcomes and patient-reported outcomes into decisions regarding emergency diagnostic imaging. Finally, based on a modified Delphi process involving members of the PCOR work group, prioritized research questions are proposed to advance the science of patient-centered outcomes in ED diagnostic imaging., (© 2015 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Overtesting, the downstream consequences of overdiagnosis, and overtreatment of some patients are topics of growing debate within emergency medicine (EM). The "Preventing Overdiagnosis" conference, hosted by The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, with sponsorship from consumer organizations, medical journals, and academic institutions, is evidence of an expanding interest in this topic. However, EM represents a compellingly unique environment, with increased decision density tied to high stakes for patients and providers with missed or delayed diagnoses in a professional atmosphere that does not tolerate mistakes. This article reviews the relevance of this reductionist paradigm to EM, provides a first-hand synopsis of the first "Preventing Overdiagnosis" conference, and assesses barriers to moving the concept of less test ordering to reality., (© 2015 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Shared decision-making (SDM), a collaborative process in which patients and providers make health care decisions together, taking into account the best scientific evidence available, as well as the patient's values and preferences, is being increasingly advocated as the optimal approach to decision-making for many health care decisions. The rapidly paced and often chaotic environment of the emergency department (ED), however, is a unique clinical setting that offers many practical and contextual challenges. Despite these challenges, in a recent survey emergency physicians reported there to be more than one reasonable management option for over 50% of their patients and that they take an SDM approach in 58% of such patients. SDM has also been selected as the topic on which to develop a future research agenda at the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference, "Shared Decision-making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy-relevant Patient-centered Research Agenda" (http://www.saem.org/annual-meeting/education/2016-aem-consensus-conference). In this paper the authors describe the conceptual model of SDM as originally conceived by Charles and Gafni and highlight aspects of the model relevant to the practice of emergency medicine. In addition, through the use of vignettes from the authors' clinical practices, the applicability of SDM to contemporary EM practice is illustrated and the ethical and pragmatic implications of taking an SDM approach are explored. It is hoped that this document will be read in advance of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference, to facilitate group discussions at the conference., (© 2015 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)