Search

Background: In many countries including the USA, the UK and Canada, the impact of COVID-19 on people of colour has been disproportionately high but examination of disparities in patients presenting to ED has been limited. We assessed racial and ethnic differences in COVID-19 positivity and outcomes in patients presenting to EDs in the USA, and the effect of the phase of the pandemic on these outcomes., Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of adult patients tested for COVID-19 during, or 14 days prior to, the index ED visit in 2020. Data were obtained from the National Registry of Suspected COVID-19 in Emergency Care network which has data from 155 EDs across 27 US states. Hierarchical models were used to account for clustering by hospital. The outcomes included COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalisation at index visit, subsequent hospitalisation within 30 days and 30-day mortality. We further stratified the analysis by time period (early phase: March-June 2020; late phase: July-September 2020)., Results: Of the 26 111 adult patients, 38% were non-Hispanic White (NHW), 29% Black, 20% Hispanic/Latino, 3% Asian and 10% all others; half were female. The median age was 56 years (IQR 40-69), and 53% were diagnosed with COVID-19; of those, 59% were hospitalised at index visit. Of those discharged from ED, 47% had a subsequent hospitalisation in 30 days. Hispanic/Latino patients had twice (adjusted OR (aOR) 2.3; 95% CI 1.8 to 3.0) the odds of COVID-19 diagnosis than NHW patients, after adjusting for age, sex and comorbidities. Black, Asian and other minority groups also had higher odds of being diagnosed (compared with NHW patients). On stratification, this association was observed in both phases for Hispanic/Latino patients. Hispanic/Latino patients had lower odds of hospitalisation at index visit, but when stratified, this effect was only observed in early phase. Subsequent hospitalisation was more likely in Asian patients (aOR 3.1; 95% CI 1.1 to 8.7) in comparison with NHW patients. Subsequent ED visit was more likely in Blacks and Hispanic/Latino patients in late phase., Conclusion: We found significant differences in ED outcomes that are not explained by comorbidity burden. The gap decreased but persisted during the later phase in 2020., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: The study aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in identifying small bowel obstruction (SBO) and to investigate the impact of clinician experience level and body mass index (BMI) on POCUS performance for diagnosing SBO in the Emergency Department., Methods: We systematically searched PubMed and Cochrane databases from January 2011-2022. We performed a meta-analysis using individual patient-level data from prospective diagnostic accuracy studies from which we obtained data from the corresponding authors. Overall test characteristics and subgroup analysis across clinician experience levels and a range of BMI were calculated. The primary outcome was SBO as the final diagnosis during hospitalization., Results: We included Individual patient data from 433 patients from 5 prospective studies. Overall, 33% of patients had a final diagnosis of SBO. POCUS had 83.0% (95%CI 71.7%-90.4%) sensitivity and 93.0% (95%CI 55.3%-99.3%) specificity; LR+ was 11.9 (95%CI 1.2-114.9) and LR- was 0.2 (95%CI 0.1-0.3). Residents had exhibited a sensitivity of 73.0% (95%CI 56.6%-84.9%) and specificity of 88.2% (95%CI 58.8%-97.5%), whereas attendings had demonstrated a sensitivity of 87.7% (95%CI 71.1%-95.4%) and specificity of 91.4% (95%CI 57.4%-98.8%). Among those patients with BMI<30 kg/m 2 , POCUS showed a sensitivity of 88.6% (95%CI 79.5%-94.7%) and a specificity of 84.0% (95%CI 75.3%-90.6%), while patients with BMI ≥ 30 kg/m 2 exhibited a sensitivity of 72.0% (95%CI 50.6%-87.9%) and specificity of 89.5% (95%CI 75.2%-97.1%)., Conclusions: POCUS correctly identified those patients with SBO with high sensitivity and specificity. Diagnostic accuracy was slightly reduced when performed by resident physicians and among patients with a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m 2 ., Registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022303598., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.)