Search

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.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 MedicareMedicaid 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.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.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.

To evaluate the association between potential emergency department (ED)-based modifiable risk factors and subsequent development of delirium among hospitalized older adults free of delirium at the time of ED stay.Observational cohort study of patients aged ≥75 years who screened negative for delirium in the ED, were subsequently admitted to the hospital, and had delirium screening performed within 48 h of admission. Potential ED-based risk factors for delirium included ED length of stay (LOS), administration of opioids, benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, or anticholinergics, and the placement of urinary catheter while in the ED. Odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.Among 472 patients without delirium in the ED (mean age 84 years, 54.2% females), 33 (7.0%) patients developed delirium within 48 h of hospitalization. The ED LOS of those who developed delirium was similar to those who did not develop delirium (312.1 vs 325.6 min, MD -13.5 min, CI -56.1 to 29.0). Patients who received opioids in the ED were as likely to develop delirium as those who did not receive opioids (7.2% vs 6.9%: OR 1.04, CI 0.44 to 2.48). Patients who received benzodiazepines had a higher risk of incident delirium, the difference was clinically but not statistically significant (37.3% vs 6.5%, OR 5.35, CI 0.87 to 23.81). Intermittent urinary catheterization (OR 2.05, CI 1.00 to 4.22) and Foley placement (OR 3.69, CI 1.55 to 8.80) were associated with a higher risk of subsequent delirium. After adjusting for presence of dementia, only Foley placement in the ED remained significantly associated with development of in-hospital delirium (adjusted OR 3.16, CI 1.22 to 7.53).ED LOS and ED opioid use were not associated with higher risk of incident delirium in this cohort. Urinary catheterization in the ED was associated with an increased risk of subsequent delirium. These findings can be used to design ED-based initiatives and increase delirium prevention efforts.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the QTc interval variation after low-dose droperidol in a population of undifferentiated, stable, and non-agitated patients receiving droperidol in the emergency department. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of patients aged ≥ 12 years of age who received low-dose droperidol (≤ 2.5 mg) for indications other than acute behavioral disturbances. QTc intervals were monitored in real-time during pre-specified observation periods in the ED. Primary outcome was variation of QTc interval after droperidol administration, defined as the maximum delta (change) of QTc interval. Other outcomes included proportion of patients with a QTc ≥ 500 ms after droperidol, delta ≥ +60 ms, and incidence of clinical adverse events. Patients were monitored up to 30 minutes after IV bolus and up to 46 minutes after infusion. RESULTS: A total of 68 patients were included (mean age 42.1 years, 66.2% females). The median dose of droperidol was 1.875 mg (range 0.625 mg, 2.5 mg) and 94.1% received droperidol for headache management. Most patients received droperidol as a 2-minute bolus (n = 41, 60.3%). The mean maximum delta of QTc interval after droperidol across all 68 patients was +29.9 ms (SD 15). A total of 12 patients (17.6%) experienced a QTc interval ≥ 500 ms during the observation period after droperidol, and 3 patients (4.4%) had a delta QTc ≥ +60 ms. There were no serious arrhythmias, such as TdP, or deaths among the 68 participants in this study (0/68). However, 13.2% (n=9) had at least one non-serious adverse event including restlessness and/or anxiety. CONCLUSION: The QTc interval slightly increased after droperidol administration, but these prolongations were brief, mostly below 500 msec and did not lead to serious arrhythmias. The yield of continuous cardiac monitoring in patients receiving low doses of droperidol is likely low.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the short-term mortality of adult patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with altered mental status (AMS) as compared to other common chief complaints. METHODS: Observational cohort study of adult patients (age ≥ 40) who presented to an academic ED over a 1-year period with five pre-specified complaints at ED triage: AMS, generalized weakness, chest pain, abdominal pain, and headache. Primary outcomes included 7- and 30-day mortality. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age, acuity level, and comorbidities. RESULTS: A total of 9,850 ED visits were included for analysis from which 101 (1.0%) and 295 (3.0%) died within 7 and 30 days, respectively. Among 683 AMS visits, the 7-day mortality rate was 3.2%. Mortality was lower for all other chief complaints, including generalized weakness (17/1170, 1.5%), abdominal pain (32/3609, 0.9%), chest pain (26/3548, 0.7%), and headache (4/840, 0.5%). After adjusting for key confounders, patients presenting with AMS had a significantly higher risk of death within 7 days of ED arrival than patients presenting with chest pain (HR 3.72, 95% CI 2.05 to 6.76, p

To describe the emergency department (ED) triage of anaphylaxis patients based on the Emergency Severity Index (ESI), assess the association between ESI triage level and ED epinephrine administration, and determine characteristics associated with lower acuity triage ESI assignment (levels 3 and 4).We conducted a cohort study of adult and pediatric anaphylaxis patients between September 2010 and September 2018 at an academic ED. Patient characteristics and management were compared between Emergency Severity Index (ESI) triage level 1 or 2 versus levels 3 or 4 using logistic regression analysis. We adhered to STROBE reporting guidelines.A total of 1090 patient visits were included. There were 26 (2%), 515 (47%), 489 (45%), and 60 (6%) visits that were assigned an ESI triage level of 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Epinephrine was administered in the ED to 53% of patients triaged ESI level 1 or 2 and to 40% of patients triaged ESI level 3 or 4. Patients who were assigned a lower acuity ESI level of 3 or 4 had a longer median time from ED arrival to epinephrine administration compared to those with a higher acuity ESI level of 1 or 2 (28 min compared to 13 min, p .001). A lower acuity ESI level was more likely to be assigned to visits with a chief concern of hives, rash, or pruritus (OR 2.33 [95% CI, 1.20-4.53]) and less likely to be assigned to visits among adults (OR, 0.43 [0.31-0.60]), patients who received epinephrine from emergency medical services (OR 0.56 [0.38-0.82]), presented with posterior pharyngeal or uvular angioedema (OR, 0.56 [0.38-0.82]), hypoxemia (OR, 0.34 [0.18-0.64]), or increased heart (OR 0.83 [0.73-0.95]) or respiratory (OR 0.70 [0.60-0.82]) rates.Patients triaged to lower acuity ESI levels experienced delays in ED epinephrine administration. Adult and pediatric patients with skin-related chief concerns were more likely to be to be assigned lower acuity ESI levels. Further studies are needed to identify interventions that will improve ED anaphylaxis triage.

Objective To identify predictors of 30-day emergency department (ED) return visits in patients age 65–79 years and age ≥ 80 years. Methods This was a cohort study of older adults who presented to the ED over a 1-year period. A mixed-effects logistic regression model was used to identify predictors for returning to the ED within 30 days. We stratified the cohort into those aged 65–79 years and aged ≥80 years. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported. This study adhered to the STROBE reporting guidelines. Results A total of 21,460 ED visits representing 14,528 unique patients were included. The overall return rate was 15% (1998/13,300 visits) for age 65–79 years, and 16% (1306/8160 visits) for age ≥ 80 years. A history of congestive heart failure (CHF), dementia, or prior hospitalization within 2 years were associated with increased odds of returning in both age groups (for age 65–79: CHF aOR 1.36 [CI 1.16–1.59], dementia aOR 1.27 [CI 1.07–1.49], prior hospitalization aOR 1.36 [CI 1.19–1.56]; for age ≥ 80: CHF aOR 1.32 [CI 1.13–1.55], dementia aOR 1.22 [CI 1.04–1.42], and prior hospitalization aOR 1.27 [CI 1.09–1.47]). Being admitted from the ED was associated with decreased odds of returning to the ED within 30 days (aOR 0.72 [CI 0.64–0.80] for age 65–79 years and 0.72 [CI 0.63–0.82] for age ≥ 80). Conclusion Age alone was not an independent predictor of return visits. Prior hospitalization, dementia and CHF were predictors of 30-day ED return. The identification of predictors of return visits may help to optimize care transition in the ED.

Objective To compare resource utilization and mortality between older and younger adult patients with similar ED chief complaints and ESI triage levels. Methods This was an observational study of consecutive adult patients (age ≥ 40) who presented to an academic ED over a 1-year period with chest pain, abdominal pain, altered mental status, generalized weakness, or headache. Patients were categorized into 40–64, 65–79, and ≥ 80-year old groups. Mortality and utilization outcomes were compared between age groups through logistic regression models or Cox proportional hazards adjusting for ESI level and chief complaint. Odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios (HR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results A total of 9798 ED visits were included. As compared to younger adults (age 40–64), older adults, independently of ESI level and chief complaint, had higher ED laboratory use (OR 1.46 [CI 1.29, 1.66] for age 65–80; OR 1.33 [CI 1.15, 1.55] for age ≥ 80), ED radiology use (OR 1.40 [CI 1.26, 1.56]; OR 1.48 [CI 1.30, 1.69]), hospital admission (OR 1.56 [CI 1.42, 1.72]; OR 1.97 [CI 1.75, 2.21]), and ICU admission (OR 1.38 [CI 1.15, 1.65]; OR 1.23 [CI 0.99, 1.52]). Despite similar ESI and chief complaint, patients age 65–79 and ≥ 80 had higher 30-day mortality rates (HR 1.87 [CI 1.39 to 2.51] and 2.47 [CI 1.81 to 3.37], respectively). Conclusions Older adults with similar chief complaints and ESI levels than younger adults, have significantly higher ED resource use, hospitalization rates, and mortality.

Objective Determine if a comfort cart would improve older adults' comfort and facilitate communication during Emergency Department (ED) visits. Methods A comfort cart containing low-cost, non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient comfort and ability to communicate (e.g., hearing amplifiers, reading glasses) were made available to patients aged ≥65 years. Patients and clinicians were surveyed to assess effectiveness. We followed the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence: SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines. Results Three hundred patients and 100 providers were surveyed. Among patients, 98.0%, 95.1%, and 67.5% somewhat or strongly agreed that the comfort cart improved comfort, overall experience, and independence, respectively. Among providers, 97.0%, 95.0%, 87.0%, and 83% somewhat or strongly agreed that the comfort cart provided comfort, improved patient satisfaction, increased ability to give compassionate care, and increased patient orientation. Conclusion The comfort cart was an affordable and effective intervention that improved patients' comfort by facilitating communication, wellbeing, and compassionate care delivery.

Background Droperidol is a dopamine receptor antagonist that functions as an analgesic, sedative, and antiemetic. In 2001, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration required a black box warning in response to case reports of QT prolongation and potential fatal arrhythmias. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of droperidol in patients presenting to a United States Emergency Department (ED). Methods Observational cohort study of all droperidol administrations from 1/1/2012 through 4/19/2018 at an academic ED. The primary endpoint was mortality within 24 h of droperidol administration. Secondary endpoint included use of rescue analgesics. Results A total of 6,881 visits by 5,784 patients received droperidol of whom 6,353 visits authorized use of their records for research, including 5.4% administrations in children and 8.2% in older adults (≥65). Droperidol was used as an analgesic for pain (N = 1,387, 21.8%) and headache (N = 3,622, 57.0%), as a sedative (N = 550, 8.7%), and as an antiemetic (N = 794, 12.5%). No deaths secondary to droperidol administration were recorded within 24 h. Need for rescue analgesia occurred in 5.2% of patients with headache (N = 188) and 7.4% of patients with pain (N = 102); 1.1% of patients with headache received rescue opioids (N = 38) after droperidol, as did 5.4% of patients with pain other than headache (N = 75). No patients had fatal arrhythmias. Akathisia occurred in 2.9%. Conclusion No fatalities were seen among this large cohort of patients who received droperidol in the ED. Our findings suggest droperidol's effectiveness and safety when used as an analgesic, antiemetic and/or sedative.

The Elderly Risk Assessment (ERA) score is a validated index for primary care patients that predict hospitalizations, mortality, and Emergency Department (ED) visits. The score incorporates age, prior hospital days, marital status, and comorbidities. Our aim was to validate the ERA score in ED patients.Observational cohort study of patients age ≥ 60 presenting to an academic ED over a 1-year period. Regression analyses were performed for associations with outcomes (hospitalization, return visits and death). Medians, interquartile range (IQR), odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.The cohort included 27,397 visits among 18,607 patients. Median age 74 years (66-82), 48% were female and 59% were married. Patients from 54% of visits were admitted to the hospital, 16% returned to the ED within 30 days, and 18% died within one year. Higher ERA scores were associated with: hospital admission (score 10 [4-16] vs 5 [1-11], p 0.0001), return visits (11 [5-17] vs 7 [2-13], p 0.0001); and death within one year (14 [7-20] vs 6 [2-13], p 0.0001). Patients with ERA score ≥ 16 were more likely to be admitted to the hospital, OR 2.14 (2.02-2.28, p 0.0001), return within 30 days OR 1.99 (1.85-2.14), and to die within a year, OR 2.69 (2.54-2.85).The ERA score can be automatically calculated within the electronic health record and helps identify patients at increased risk of death, hospitalization and return ED visits. The ERA score can be applied to ED patients, and may help prognosticate the need for advanced care planning.

Study objective To assess the efficacy and safety of intranasal analgesic-dose ketamine as compared to intranasal fentanyl for pediatric acute pain. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases for randomized controlled trials from inception to December 2019. We conducted meta-analysis with random-effects models to evaluate pain reduction, rescue analgesia, adverse events and sedation between intranasal ketamine and intranasal fentanyl. Random-effects models were used to estimate weighted mean differences (WMD) and pooled relative risks (RR). Results A total of 546 studies were screened and 4 trials were included. In the meta-analysis of 4 studies including 276 patients, ketamine had similar reductions in pain scores from baseline to all post-intervention times (10 to 15 min: WMD -1.42, 95% CI -9.95 to 7.10; 30 min: WMD 0.40, 95% CI -6.29 to 7.10; 60 min: WMD -0.64, 95% CI -6.76 to 5.47). Ketamine was associated with similar rates of rescue analgesia (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.25). Ketamine had a higher risk of non-serious adverse events (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.79), and no patients receiving ketamine had a serious adverse event. There was one serious adverse event (hypotension) with fentanyl that self-resolved. No patients receiving either IN fentanyl or ketamine had significant sedation. Conclusion Intranasal analgesic-dose ketamine may be considered as an alternative to opioids for acute pain management in children. Its accepted use will depend on the tolerability of non-serious adverse events and the desire to avoid opioids.

Study objective To summarize interventions that impact the experience of older adults in the emergency department (ED) as measured by patient experience instruments. Methods This is a systematic review to evaluate interventions aimed to improve geriatric patient experience in the ED. We searched Ovid CENTRAL, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE and PsycINFO from inception to January 2019. The main outcome was patient experience measured through instruments to assess patient experience or satisfaction. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the confidence in the evidence available. Results The search strategy identified 992 studies through comprehensive literature search and hand-search of reference lists. A total of 21 studies and 3163 older adults receiving an intervention strategy aimed at improve patient experience in the ED were included. Department-wide interventions, including geriatric ED and comprehensive geriatric assessment unit, focused care coordination with discharge planning and referral for community services, were associated with improved patient experience. Providing an assistive listening device to those with hearing loss and having a pharmacist reviewing the medication list showed an improved patient perception of quality of care provided. The confidence in the evidence available for the outcome of patient experience was deemed to be very low. Conclusion While all studies reported an outcome of patient experience, there was significant heterogeneity in the tools used to measure it. The very low certainty in the evidence available highlights the need for more reliable tools to measure patient experience and studies designed to measure the effect of the interventions.

Objective To assess the safety of a single dose of parenteral ketorolac for analgesia management in geriatric emergency department (ED) patients. Methods This was a retrospective study of all administrations of parenteral ketorolac to adults ≥65 years of age and matched controls. The primary outcome was the occurrence of any of the following adverse events within 30 days of the ED visit: gastrointestinal bleeding, intracranial bleeding, acute decompensated heart failure, acute coronary syndrome, dialysis, transfusion, and death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of an increase in serum creatinine of ≥1.5 times baseline within 7 and 30 days of the ED visit. Results There were 480 patients included in the final analysis, of which 120 received ketorolac (3: 1 matching). The primary outcome occurred in 14 of 360 patients who did not receive ketorolac and 2 of 120 ketorolac patients (3.9% vs 1.7%, p = 0.38; OR 2.39, 95% CI 0.54–10.66). There was no occurrence of dialysis or death in either group. The secondary outcome occurred in 1 of 13 and 1 of 23 ketorolac patients with both a baseline serum creatinine and a measure within 7 and 30 days, respectively, but did not occur in patients who did not receive ketorolac (7 days: 7.7% vs 0.0%, p = 0.29; 30 days: 4.4% vs 0.0%, p = 0.22). Conclusion The use of single doses of parenteral ketorolac for analgesia management was not associated with an increased incidence of adverse cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, or renal adverse outcomes in a select group of older adults.

Objectives Despite a high prevalence of coronary heart disease in both genders, studies show a gender disparity in evaluation whereby women are less likely than men to undergo timely or comprehensive cardiac investigation. Using videographic analysis, we sought to quantify gender differences in provider recommendations and patient evaluations. Methods We analyzed video recordings from our Chest Pain Choice trial, a single center patient-level randomized trial in which emergency department patients with chest pain being considered for cardiac stress testing were randomized to shared decision-making or usual care. Patient-provider interactions were video recorded. We compared characteristics and outcomes by gender. Results Of the 204 patients enrolled (101 decision aid; 103 usual care), 120 (58.8%) were female. Of the 75 providers evaluated, 20 (26.7%) were female. The mean (SD) pretest probability of acute coronary syndrome was lower in women [3.7% (2.2) vs 6.7% (4.4), P =.0002]. There was no gender effect on duration of discussion, clinician recommendations, OPTION scores, patient perceptions, or eventual patient dispositions. When the clinician and patient gender matched, OPTION scores were lower (interaction P =.002), and patients were less likely to find the information to be very helpful (interaction P =.10). Conclusions Despite a lower pretest probability of acute coronary syndrome in women, we did not observe any significant gender disparity in how patients were managed and evaluated. When the patients' and providers' gender matched, the provider involved them less in the decision making process, and the information provided was less helpful than when the genders did not match.

To characterize pediatric Emergency Medicine Service (EMS) transports to the Emergency Department (ED) using a national claims database.We included children, 18 years and younger, transported by EMS to an ED, from 2007 to 2016 in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse. ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnosis codes were used to categorize disease system involvement. Interventions performed were extracted using procedure codes. ED visit severity was measured by the Minnesota Algorithm.Over a 10-year period, 239,243 children were transported. Trauma was the most frequent diagnosis category for transport for children ≥5 years of age, 35.1% (age 6-13) and 32.7% (age 14-18). The most common diagnosis category in children6 years of age was neurologic (29.3%), followed by respiratory (23.1%). Over 10 years, transports for mental disorders represented 15.3% in children age 14 to 18, and had the greatest absolute increase (rate difference + 10.4 per 10,000) across all diagnoses categories. Neurologic transports also significantly increased in children age 14 to 18 (rate difference + 6.9 per 10,000). Trauma rates decreased across all age groups and had its greatest reduction among children age 14 to 18 (rate difference - 6.8 per 10,000). Across all age groups, an intervention was performed in 15.6%. Most children (83.3%) were deemed to have ED care needed type of visit, and 15.8% of the transports resulted in a hospital admission.Trauma is the most frequent diagnosis for transport in children older than 5 years of age. Mental health and neurologic transports have markedly increased, while trauma transports have decreased. Most children arriving by ambulance were classified as requiring ED level of care. These changes might have significant implication for EMS personnel and policy makers.

We aim to externally validate the Ottawa subarachnoid hemorrhage (OSAH) clinical decision rule. This rule identifies patients with acute nontraumatic headache who require further investigation. We conducted a medical record review of all patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with headache from January 2011 to November 2013. Per the OSAH rule, patients with any of the following predictors require further investigation: age 40 years or older, neck pain, stiffness or limited flexion, loss of consciousness, onset during exertion, or thunderclap. The rule was applied following the OSAH rule criteria. Patients were followed up for repeat visits within 7 days of initial presentation. Data were electronically harvested from the electronic medical record and manually abstracted from individual patient charts using a standardized data abstraction form. Calibration between trained reviewers was performed periodically. A total of 5034 ED visits with acute headache were reviewed for eligibility. There were 1521 visits that met exclusion criteria, and 3059 had headache of gradual onset or time to maximal intensity greater than or equal to 1 hour. The rule was applied to 454 patients (9.0%). There were 9 cases of subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), yielding an incidence of 2.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0%-3.9%) in the eligible cohort. The sensitivity for SAH was 100% (95% CI, 62.9%-100%); specificity, 7.6% (95% CI, 5.4%-10.6%); positive predictive value, 2.1% (95% CI 1.0%-4.2%); and negative predictive value, 100% (95% CI, 87.4%-100%). The OSAH rule was 100% sensitive for SAH in the eligible cohort. However, its low specificity and applicability to only a minority of ED patients with headache (9%) reduce its potential impact on practice.

Background Motor vehicle–related injuries (including off-road) are the leading cause of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and acute traumatic spinal cord injury in the United States. Objectives To describe motocross-related head and spine injuries of adult patients presenting to an academic emergency department (ED). Methods We performed an observational cohort study of adult ED patients evaluated for motocross-related injuries from 2010 through 2015. Electronic health records were reviewed and data extracted using a standardized review process. Results A total of 145 motocross-related ED visits (143 unique patients) were included. Overall, 95.2% of patients were men with a median age of 25 years. Sixty-seven visits (46.2%) were associated with head or spine injuries. Forty-three visits (29.7%) were associated with head injuries, and 46 (31.7%) were associated with spine injuries. Among the 43 head injuries, 36 (83.7%) were concussions. Seven visits (16.3%) were associated with at least 1 head abnormality identified by computed tomography, including skull fracture (n = 2), subdural hematoma (n = 1), subarachnoid hemorrhage (n = 4), intraparenchymal hemorrhage (n = 3), and diffuse axonal injury (n = 3). Among the 46 spine injuries, 32 (69.6%) were acute spinal fractures. Seven patients (4.9%) had clinically significant and persistent neurologic injuries. One patient (0.7%) died, and 3 patients had severe TBIs. Conclusion Adult patients evaluated in the ED after motocross trauma had high rates of head and spine injuries with considerable morbidity and mortality. Almost half had head or spine injuries (or both), with permanent impairment for nearly 5% and death for 0.7%.

Background Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening allergic reaction that may require emergency medical system (EMS) transport. Fatal anaphylaxis is associated with delayed epinephrine administration. Patient outcome data to assess appropriateness of EMS epinephrine administration are sparse. Objectives The objectives of this study are to (1) determine the frequency of epinephrine administration in EMS-transported patients with allergic complaints, (2) identify predictors of epinephrine administration, and (3) determine frequency of emergency department (ED) epinephrine administration after EMS transport. Methods A cohort study was conducted from over 5 years. A total of 59187 EMS transports of an Advanced Life Support (ALS) ambulance service were studied. Results One hundred and three patient transports for allergic complaints were analyzed. Fifteen patients received EMS epinephrine, and epinephrine was recommended for 2 additional patients who refused, for a total of 17 (17%) patients for whom epinephrine was administered or recommended. Emergency medical system epinephrine administration or recommendation was associated with venom as a trigger (29% vs 8%; odds ratio [OR], 4.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-17.22; P = .013), respiratory symptoms (88% vs 52%; OR, 6.83; 95% CI, 1.47-31.71; P = .006), and fulfillment of anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria (82% vs 49%; OR, 3.50; 95% CI, 0.94-13.2; P = .0498). Four (4%) patients received epinephrine after ED arrival. Conclusion Low rates of epinephrine administration were observed. The association of EMS administration of epinephrine with respiratory symptoms, fulfillment of anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria, and low rate of additional epinephrine administration in the ED suggest that ALS EMS administered epinephrine based on symptom severity. Additional studies of EMS anaphylaxis management including ED management and outcomes are needed.

Background Scribes offer a potential solution to the clerical burden and time constraints felt by health care providers. Objectives This is a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate scribe effect on patient throughput, revenue, and patient and provider satisfaction. Methods Six electronic databases were systematically searched from inception until May 2015. We included studies where clinicians used a scribe. We collected throughput metrics, billing data, and patient/provider satisfaction data. Meta-analyses were conducted using a random effects model and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement. Results From a total of 210 titles, 17 studies were eligible and included. Qualitative analysis suggests improvement in provider/patient satisfaction. Meta-analysis on throughput data was derived from 3 to 5 studies depending on the metric; meta-analysis revealed no impact of scribes on length of stay (346 minutes for scribes, 344 minutes for nonscribed; MD −1.6 minutes, 95% CI −22.3 to 19.2 minutes) or provider-to-disposition time (235 minutes for scribes, 216 for nonscribed; MD −18.8 minutes, 95% CI −22.3 to 19.2) with an increase in patients seen per hour (0.17 more patient per hour; 95% CI 0.02-32). Two studies reported relative value units, which increased 0.21 (95% CI 0-0.42) per patient with scribe use. Conclusion We found no difference in length of stay or time to disposition with a small increase in the number of patients per hour seen when using scribes. Potential benefits include revenue and patient/provider satisfaction.

Introduction Despite a relatively high frequency of appendix nonvisualization when using ultrasound to diagnose appendicitis, many studies either fail to report these results or inconsistently analyze outcomes. Objectives The objective of this study is to determine the most transparent and accurate way of reporting and analyzing ultrasound results for the diagnosis of appendicitis. Methods This was an observational cohort study of emergency department patients age 18 years or older who underwent right lower quadrant ultrasonography from September 2010 to October 2011. Patient characteristics, imaging, pathology, and follow-up data were analyzed. Test characteristics were calculated using conventional 2 × 2 contingency table analysis excluding inconclusive ultrasound results and an intention-to-diagnose approach with a 3 × 2 table. Results Sixty-five patients were included. Forty-four (68%) patients had a nonvisualized appendix resulting in an overall diagnostic yield of 32%. Twenty-one patients had a visualized appendix (14 [22%] negative and 7 [11%] positive for appendicitis). Using 2 × 2 contingency table analysis, sensitivity and specificity were 100%. Using the 3 × 2 table with and the intention-to-diagnose principle, sensitivity was 70% and specificity was 25%. Three (7%) of 44 patients with a nonvisualized appendix had appendicitis (likelihood ratio = 0.40). Discussion We suggest reporting ultrasound results using a 3 × 2 table (including nonvisualized findings) but using the traditional 2 × 2 type of analysis for test characteristic calculations. This approach allows for the determination of diagnostic yield and calculation of likelihood ratios when the appendix is not visualized. This approach to reporting should be considered for all types of diagnostic ultrasound studies.