Search

Background Free Open-Access Medical education (FOAM) use among residents continues to rise. However, it often lacks quality assurance processes and residents receive little guidance on quality assessment. The Academic Life in Emergency Medicine Approved Instructional Resources tool (AAT) was created for FOAM appraisal by and for expert educators and has demonstrated validity in this context. It has yet to be evaluated in other populations. Objectives We assessed the AAT's usability in a diverse population of practicing emergency medicine (EM) physicians, residents, and medical students; solicited feedback; and developed a revised tool. Methods As part of the Medical Education Translational Resources: Impact and Quality (METRIQ) study, we recruited medical students, EM residents, and EM attendings to evaluate five FOAM posts with the AAT and provide quantitative and qualitative feedback via an online survey. Two independent analysts performed a qualitative thematic analysis with discrepancies resolved through discussion and negotiated consensus. This analysis informed development of an initial revised AAT, which was then further refined after pilot testing among the author group. The final tool was reassessed for reliability. Results Of 330 recruited international participants, 309 completed all ratings. The Best Evidence in Emergency Medicine (BEEM) score was the component most frequently reported as difficult to use. Several themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: for ease of use-understandable, logically structured, concise, and aligned with educational value. Limitations include deviation from questionnaire best practices, validity concerns, and challenges assessing evidence-based medicine. Themes supporting its use include evaluative utility and usability. The author group pilot tested the initial revised AAT, revealing a total score average measure intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of moderate reliability (ICC = 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0 to 0.962). The final AAT's average measure ICC was 0.88 (95% CI = 0.77 to 0.95). Conclusions We developed the final revised AAT from usability feedback. The new score has significantly increased usability, but will need to be reassessed for reliability in a broad population.

Background Multifaceted interventions driven by the needs of patients and providers can help move evidence into practice more rapidly. This study engaged both patients and primary care providers (PCPs) to help design novel opinion leader (OL)-based interventions for patients with acute asthma seen in emergency departments (EDs). Methods A mixed methods design was employed. In phase I, we invited convenience samples of patients with asthma presenting to the ED and PCPs to participate in a survey. Perceptions with respect to: a) an ideal OL-profile for asthma guidance; and b) content, style and delivery methods of OL-based interventions in acute asthma directed from the ED were collected. In phase II, we conducted focus groups to further explore preferences and expectations for such interventions with attention to barriers and facilitators for implementation. Results Overall, 54 patients completed the survey; 39% preferred receiving guidance from a respirologist, 44% during their ED visit and 56% through individual discussions. In addition, 55% expressed interest in having PCP follow-up within a week of ED discharge. A respirologist was identified as the ideal OL-profile by 59% of the 39 responding PCPs. All expressed interest in receiving notification of their patients’ ED presentation, most within a week and including diagnosis and ED/post ED-treatment. Personalized, guideline-based, recommendations were considered to be the ideal content by the majority; 39% requested this guidance through a pamphlet faxed to their offices. In the focus groups, patients and PCPs recognized the importance of health professional liaisons in transitions in care; patient anxiety and PCP time constraints were identified as potential barriers for ED-educational information uptake and proper post-ED follow-up, respectively. Conclusions Engaging patients and PCPs yielded actionable information to tailor OL-based multifaceted interventions for acute asthma in the ED. We identified potential facilitators for the implementation of such interventions (e.g., patient interaction with alternative health care professionals who could facilitate transitions in asthma care between the ED and the primary care setting), and for the provision of post discharge self-management education (e.g., consideration of the first week of ED discharge as a practical time frame for this intervention). Prioritization of identified barriers (e.g., lack of PCP involvement) could be addressed by the identification of potential early adopters in practice environments (e.g., clinicians with special interest in asthma).

Background Inhaled short-acting anticholinergics (SAAC) and short-acting beta₂-agonists (SABA) are effective therapies for adult patients with acute asthma who present to the emergency department (ED). It is unclear, however, whether the combination of SAAC and SABA treatment is more effective in reducing hospitalisations compared to treatment with SABA alone. Objectives To conduct an up-to-date systematic search and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of combined inhaled therapy (SAAC + SABA agents) vs. SABA alone to reduce hospitalisations in adult patients presenting to the ED with an exacerbation of asthma. Search methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SCOPUS, LILACS, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global and evidence-based medicine (EBM) databases using controlled vocabulary, natural language terms, and a variety of specific and general terms for inhaled SAAC and SABA drugs. The search spanned from 1946 to July 2015. The Cochrane Airways Group provided search results from the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials which was most recently conducted in July 2016. An extensive search of the grey literature was completed to identify any other potentially relevant studies. Selection criteria Included studies were randomised or controlled clinical trials comparing the effectiveness of combined inhaled therapy (SAAC and SABA) to SABA treatment alone to prevent hospitalisations in adults with acute asthma in the emergency department. Two independent review authors assessed studies for inclusion using pre-determined criteria. Data collection and analysis For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated individual and pooled statistics as risk ratios (RR) or odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random-effects model and reporting heterogeneity (I²). For continuous outcomes, we reported individual trial results using mean differences (MD) and pooled results as weighted mean differences (WMD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs using a random-effects model. Main results We included 23 studies that involved a total of 2724 enrolled participants. Most studies were rated at unclear or high risk of bias. Overall, participants receiving combination inhaled therapy were less likely to be hospitalised (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.87; participants = 2120; studies = 16; I² = 12%; moderate quality of evidence). An estimated 65 fewer patients per 1000 would require hospitalisation after receiving combination therapy (95% 30 to 95), compared to 231 per 1000 patients receiving SABA alone. Although combination inhaled therapy was more effective than SABA treatment alone in reducing hospitalisation in participants with severe asthma exacerbations, this was not found for participants with mild or moderate exacerbations (test for difference between subgroups P = 0.02). Participants receiving combination therapy were more likely to experience improved forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) (MD 0.25 L, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.48; participants = 687; studies = 6; I² = 70%; low quality of evidence), peak expiratory flow (PEF) (MD 36.58 L/min, 95% CI 23.07 to 50.09; participants = 1056; studies = 12; I² = 25%; very low quality of evidence), increased percent change in PEF from baseline (MD 24.88, 95% CI 14.83 to 34.93; participants = 551; studies = 7; I² = 23%; moderate quality of evidence), and were less likely to return to the ED for additional care (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; participants = 1180; studies = 5; I² = 0%; moderate quality of evidence) than participants receiving SABA alone. Participants receiving combination inhaled therapy were more likely to experience adverse events than those treated with SABA agents alone (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.28 to 3.20; participants = 1392; studies = 11; I² = 14%; moderate quality of evidence). Among patients receiving combination therapy, 103 per 1000 were likely to report adverse events (95% 31 to 195 more) compared to 131 per 1000 patients receiving SABA alone. Authors' conclusions Overall, combination inhaled therapy with SAAC and SABA reduced hospitalisation and improved pulmonary function in adults presenting to the ED with acute asthma. In particular, combination inhaled therapy was more effective in preventing hospitalisation in adults with severe asthma exacerbations who are at increased risk of hospitalisation, compared to those with mild-moderate exacerbations, who were at a lower risk to be hospitalised. A single dose of combination therapy and multiple doses both showed reductions in the risk of hospitalisation among adults with acute asthma. However, adults receiving combination therapy were more likely to experience adverse events, such as tremor, agitation, and palpitations, compared to patients receiving SABA alone.

Objectives: Patients with asthma commonly present to emergency departments (ED) with exacerbations. Asthma guidelines recommend close follow-up with a primary care provider (PCP) after ED discharge; however, this linkage is often delayed or absent. The objective of this study was to assess whether ED-directed educational interventions improve office follow-up with PCPs after ED discharge for acute asthma. Methods: Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in seven electronic databases (1946 to 2014). Randomized controlled clinical trials examining the effectiveness of educational interventions to increase office follow-up with a PCP were included. Study quality was determined using the Cochrane risk of bias tool; fidelity of the interventions was assessed using the Treatment Fidelity Assessment Grid. Using study data, risk ratios (RRs),and the number needed to treat for benefit (NNTB) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects models. Results: From 427 potentially relevant studies, five (n = 825) were included. The overall risk of bias was unclear, and the description of intervention fidelity varied across the studies. Educational interventions targeting either patients or PCPs led to a greater likelihood of having primary care follow-up after ED discharge (RR = 1.6; 95% CI = 1.31 to 1.87; I(2) = 0%). The number needed to treat for benefit was six (95% CI = 4 to 11). No significant benefit was observed in reductions of relapses (RR = 1.3; 95% CI = 0.82 to 1.98; I(2) = 23%) and admissions (RR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.24 to 1.06; I(2) = 0%). Due to the small number of studies for each comparison, publication bias was not formally assessed. Conclusions: ED-directed educational interventions targeting either patients or providers increase the chance of having office follow-up visits with PCPs after asthma exacerbations. Their impact on health-related outcomes (e.g., relapse and admissions) remains unclear.

Introduction: Acute atrial fibrillation or flutter (AFF) is the most common dysrhythmia managed in the emergency department (ED). A key component of managing AFF in the ED is the prevention of stroke. Predictive indices (e.g., CHADS2 , HAS-BLED) should be used to assess each patient’s risk of stroke and bleeding to determine the appropriate anticoagulation therapy. The frequency of use of these predictive indices in the emergency department to determine appropriate anticoagulation therapy remains unclear. This systematic review is designed to examine the use of risk scores in the ED to determine the management of patients presenting to the ED for atrial fibrillation and flutter. Methods: An extensive search of eight electronic databases and grey literature was conducted. Quasi-experimental studies were eligible for inclusion. Studies had to report on the ED management of adult patients presenting with AFF to be included. Two independent reviewers judged the relevance, inclusion, and risk of bias of the studies. Individual and pooled statistics were calculated as odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI using a random effects model and heterogeneity (I2) was reported. Results: From 1,648 citations, 37 studies were included in this review. Heterogeneity was very high, precluding pooling. Only one of the included studies documented the use of CHADS2 scores by attending physicians; while no studies documented the use of HAS-BLED. There was variability in the ED management strategies of AFF. The utilization of rhythm control in the treatment of AFF ranged considerable (OR: 0.04-9.84) in comparison to rate control. Of the 17 studies reporting cardioversion approaches, chemical (9 {53%}) cardioversion was the most common management strategy of AFF. Conclusion: Our results suggests that either few physicians are documenting stroke risk scores in adult patients with AFF, or that research studies assessing ED management of AFF are not reporting scores documented by the attending physicians. Future research needs to examine the use of stroke risk scores to determine the optimal and appropriate care for patients.

Introduction: Educational interventions driven by the needs of users can help move evidence into practice. This study considered the perceptions of patients and knowledge users in the design of an educational intervention in acute asthma directed from Emergency Departments (EDs). Methods: A mixed methods design with two phases was used. In phase I, convenience samples of asthmatics presenting to the University of Alberta Hospital ED and primary care providers (PCPs) from Edmonton were invited to participate in a survey. Perceptions with respect to: a) an ideal local opinion leader (OL) in ambulatory asthma care; and b) content, style and delivery methods of OL educational interventions in acute asthma were collected. In phase II, focus-group discussions were conducted to further explore preferences and expectations for such interventions; self-perceived barriers and facilitators for implementation were assessed. Results: Overall, 54 patients completed the survey; 39% preferred receiving guidance from a Respirologist, 44% during their ED visit and 56% through individual discussions. In addition, 55% expressed interest in having PCP follow-up within a week of discharge. A Respirologist was identified as an OL in ambulatory asthma by 59% of the 39 responding PCPs. All expressed interest in receiving notification of their patients’ ED presentation, most within a week and including diagnosis and ED/post ED-treatment. Personalized and guideline-based recommendations were considered to be the ideal content by the majority; 39% requested this guidance through an educational pamphlet faxed to their offices. In the focus groups, patients and PCPs recognized the importance of health professional liaisons in the ED to PCP transition of care; patient anxiety and time constraints were identified as potential barriers for ED-educational information uptake and proper post-ED follow-up, respectively. Conclusion: Messages arising from patients and PCPs help tailoring study interventions to meet local needs and expectations. Overall, patients and physicians are seeking ways to mitigate problems with transitions in care. This contact with the practice environment also facilitates the identification of potential determinants to implementation and knowledge uptake.

Introduction: Some non-urgent/low-acuity Emergency Department (ED) presentations are considered convenience visits and potentially avoidable with improved access to primary care services. This study surveyed patients who presented to the ED and explored their self-reported reasons and barriers for not being connected to a primary care provider (PCP). Methods: Patients aged 17 years and older were randomly selected from electronic registration records at three urban EDs in Edmonton, Alberta (AB), Canada. Following initial triage, stabilization, and verbal informed consent, patients completed a 47-item questionnaire. Data from the survey were cross-referenced to a minimal patient dataset consisting of ED and demographic information. The questionnaire collected information on patient characteristics, their connection to a PCP, and patients' reasons for not having a PCP. Results: Of the 2144 eligible patients, 1408 (65.7%) surveys were returned and 1402 (65.4%) were completed. The majority of patients (74.4%) presenting to the ED reported having a family physician; however, the ‘closeness’ of the connection to their family physician varied greatly among ED patients with the most recent family physician visit ranging from 1 hour before ED presentation to 45 years prior. Approximately 25% of low acuity ED patients reported no connection with a family physician. Reasons for a lack of PCP connection included: prior physician retired, left, or died (19.8%), they had never tried to find one (19.2%), they had recently moved to Alberta (18.0%), and they were unable to find one (16.5%). Conclusion: A surprisingly high proportion of ED patients (25.6%) have no identified PCP. Patients had a variety of reasons for not having a family physician. These need to be understood and addressed in order for primary care access to successfully contribute to diverting non-urgent, low acuity presentations from the ED.