Search

Introduction: Canadian patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) typically undergo a triage process where they are assessed by a specially trained nurse and assigned a Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) score, indicating their level of acuity and urgency of assessment. We sought to assess the ability of patients to self-triage themselves through use of one of two of our proprietary self-triage tools, and how this would compare with the standard nurse-driven triage process., Methods: We enrolled a convenience sample of ambulatory ED patients aged 17 years or older who presented with chief complaints of chest pain, abdominal pain, breathing problems, or musculoskeletal pain. Participants completed one, or both, of an algorithm generated self-triage (AGST) survey, or visual acuity scale (VAS) based self-triage tool which subsequently generated a CTAS score. Our primary outcome was to assess the accuracy of these tools to the CTAS score generated through the nurse-driven triage process., Results: A total of 223 patients were included in our analysis. Of these, 32 (14.3%) presented with chest pain, 25 (11.2%) with shortness of breath, 75 (33.6%) with abdominal pain, and 91 (40.8%) with musculoskeletal pain. Of the total number of patients, 142 (47.2%) completed the AGST tool, 159 (52.8%) completed the VAS tool and 78 (25.9%) completed both tools. When compared to the nurse-driven triage standard, both the AGST and VAS tools had poor levels of agreement for each of the four presenting complaints., Conclusions: Self-triage through use of an AGST or VAS tool is inaccurate compared to the established standard of nurse-driven triage. Although existing literature exists which suggests that self-triage tools developed for specific subsets of complaints may be feasible, our results would suggest that adopting the self-triage approach on a broader scale for all-comers to the ED does not appear to be a viable option to enhance the current triage process. Further study is required to show if self-triage can be used in the ED to optimize the triage process., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist, (Copyright: © 2024 Trivedi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Acute abdominal pain (AAP) is a major driver for capacity-use in emergency departments (EDs) worldwide. Yet, the health care utilization of patients with AAP before and after the ED remains unclear. The primary objective of this study was to describe adult patients presenting to the ED with AAP and their outpatient care (OC) use before and after the ED. Secondary objectives included description of hospitalization rates, in-hospital mortality, ED re-visits, and exploration of potential risk factors for hospitalization and ED re-visits., Methods: For the analysis, we combined routine hospital data from patients who visited 15 EDs in Germany in 2016 with their statutory health insurance OC claims data from 2014 to 2017. Adult patients were included based on a chief complaint or an ED diagnosis indicating unspecific AAP or the Manchester Triage System indicator "Abdominal pain in adults". Baseline characteristics, ED diagnosis, frequency and reason of hospitalization, frequency and type of prior-OC (prOC) use up to 3 days before and of post-OC use up to 30 days after the ED visit., Main Results: We identified 28,085 adults aged ≥ 20 years with AAP. 39.8% were hospitalized, 33.9% sought prOC before the ED visit (48.6% of them were hospitalized) and 62.7% sought post-OC up to 30 days after the ED visit. Hospitalization was significantly more likely for elderly patients (aged 65 and above vs. younger; adjusted OR 3.05 [95% CI 2.87; 3.25]), prOC users (1.71 [1.61; 1.90]) and men (1.44 [1.37; 1.52]). In-hospital mortality rate was 3.1% overall. Re-visiting the ED within 30 days was more likely for elderly patients (1.32 [1.13; 1.55) and less likely for those with prOC use (0.37 [0.31; 0.44])., Conclusions: prOC use was associated with more frequent hospitalizations but fewer ED re-visits. ED visits by prOC patients without subsequent hospitalization may indicate difficulties of OC resources to meet the complex diagnostic requirements and expectations of this patient population. Fewer ED re-visits in prOC users indicate effective care in this subgroup., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Abdominal pain is among the most common chief complaints seen in pediatric emergency departments (PEDs). This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic utility of amylase and lipase in the evaluation of abdominal pain in the PED., Methods: Retrospective, cross-sectional study of patients aged 0 to 18 years with amylase and/or lipase while in the PED in 2019. Diagnostic utility of amylase and lipase was analyzed with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and likelihood ratio (LR). The χ 2 or Fisher exact test was used when appropriate., Results: We identified 496 PED visits with tests for amylase (0.2%), lipase (53%), or both (46.8%). Abnormal levels for amylase and lipase were 4.6% and 5.6%, respectively. Amylase use in abdominal pain evaluation showed sensitivity of 30%, specificity of 92%, PPV of 26%, NPV of 93%, and LR of 7.1 ( P = 0.008). Lipase use in abdominal pain evaluation showed sensitivity of 7.5%, specificity of 94.5%, PPV of 10.7%, NPV of 92%, and LR of 0.251 ( P = 0.616). Amylase at 3 times its normal level showed sensitivity of 10%, specificity of 99.5%, PPV of 66.7%, NPV of 92.2%, and LR of 6.35 ( P = 0.012), whereas lipase showed a sensitivity of 5%, specificity of 99.3%, PPV of 40%, NPV of 92.2%, and LR of 3.9 ( P = 0.048). Identification of a clinically significant diagnosis via coordering of amylase and lipase versus lipase alone was not significant., Conclusions: Although serum amylase and lipase testing may be suitable for abdominal pain screening, the concurrent use of both does not seem to add any clinically significant value to diagnosis., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Older adults have complex medical needs that causes increased use of resources at the emergency department (ED). The prevalence of non-specific complaint (NSC) as a chief-complaint in the ED is common among older adults and is not prioritized even though possibly having worse clinical outcome. The objective was to study hospital admission and mortality for older adults visiting the ED with NSC compared to specific complaints such as dyspnea, chest pain and abdominal pain., Methods: A retrospective observational study of older adults visiting the ED with NSC and specific complaints; dyspnea, chest pain and abdominal pain was performed. Chief-complaint were collected from electronic medical records. Fatigue, confusion, non-specific complaints, generalized weakness and risk of falling were defined as non-specific complaint (NSC) when registered as chief-complaint at the ED. Admission rate and 30-days mortality were the primary outcomes., Results: A total of 4927 patients were included in the study based on chief-complaint; patients with chest pain 1599 (32%), dyspnea 1343 (27%), abdominal pain 1460 (30%) and NSC 525 (11%). Patients with dyspnea and NSC had the highest hospital admission rate 79% vs 70% compared to patients with chest pain (63%) and abdominal pain (61%) (p =  < 0.001). Patients with NSC had a mean LOS 4.7 h at the ED which was significantly higher compared to chest pain, dyspnea and abdominal pain. Mean bed-days for the whole population was 4.2 days compared to patients with NSC who had a mean LOS of 5.6 days. NSC and dyspnea were both associated with the highest 30-day mortality., Conclusion: Older patients who present with NSC at the ED are associated with a high risk for admission and 30-days mortality. In addition, patients with NSC have a longer LOS at the ED, a high admission rate and the highest number of bed-days once admitted. This study indicates that ED staff should be more vigilant when an elderly patient presents with NSC at the ED. Further studies and guidelines are needed to improve the management of these individuals., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background and Objective: Abdominal pain is a frequent reason for admission to the Emergency Department. It may be a symptom of an underlying "organic" disease or a "functional" manifestation without an underlying anatomic or physiologic alteration. The evaluation of patients with abdominal pain is a challenge for the emergency physician and the selection of patients for second-level radiological examinations or endoscopic procedures is not always easy to perform. Faecal calprotectin could be a useful diagnostic marker to distinguish between "organic" or "functional" form and its determination could be helpful to select patients for further examinations in the context of an emergency setting., Materials and Methods: This is an observational and retrospective study on 146 patients with abdominal pain and/or diarrhea (with or without rectal bleeding) admitted to the Emergency Department of Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, who collected a fecal sample to evaluate fecal calprotectin. We evaluated and correlated the level of fecal calprotectin with the final diagnosis they received., Results: 50/146 patients (34,24%) received a diagnosis of acute diverticulitis, in particular, 14/50 (28%) were complicated and 36/50 (72%) were uncomplicated; 4/146 (2,7%) were cholangitis, 32/146 (21,9%) were colitis, 6/146 (4,1%) gastritis, 42/146 (28,7%), Irritable bowel syndrome and 12/146 (8,2%) Inflammatory bowel disease. For the differential diagnosis between Irriable or inflammatory bowel diseses, our study showed a VPP and a VPN of 100% meanwhile for the differential diagnosis between Acute complicated and uncomplicated diverticulitis, our study showed a VPP of 40% and a VPN of 84%., Conclusion: In the emergency setting, faecal calprotectin could be a helpful marker to select patients with abdominal pain who need second-level radiological examinations or endoscopic procedures, guiding the emergency physician in the evaluation of such a complex and wideranging symptom., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.)

Objectives: Providing accurate and timely diagnoses is challenging in ED settings. We evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of a short, structured rapid diagnosis discussion (RaDD) between a patient's initial doctor and a second doctor for patients presenting to ED with abdominal pain., Methods: Controlled pre-post, mixed-methods pilot study in a metropolitan hospital network in Melbourne, Australia. Comparisons were made between an ED using RaDD for a 1-month period (n = 155) and two control EDs within the same hospital network (n = 2227) using standard practices. A short survey of 27 clinicians was also undertaken., Results: Provisional diagnoses changed in 24.7% (95% confidence interval 19.0, 30.4) of all cases for which a RaDD case report sheet was completed, and clinicians' confidence in their decision-making was significantly higher when using RaDD (r = 0.27). RaDD significantly increased the likelihood that patients would be sent to the short stay unit and have a blood test ordered, and significantly reduced the likelihood that patients would be discharged home from the ED or leave at their own risk. Usage of the RaDD tool was low (25.2% of eligible cases), and qualitative feedback indicated that time limitations inhibited uptake., Conclusions: RaDD encouraged clinicians to take a more cautious, risk-averse approach to care and improved confidence in their diagnostic decisions. However, cost effectiveness of these outcomes and possible implementation barriers need to be further considered in subsequent studies., (© 2023 The Authors. Emergency Medicine Australasia published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australasian College for Emergency Medicine.)

Epigastric pain is a common complaint in patients who present to the emergency department (ED); abdominal pain is the most common chief complaint in older adult patients who request treatment by a provider (A. B. Friedman et al., 2022). These patients may experience atypical presentations, which can result in delayed or missed diagnosis altogether, increasing morbidity, and mortality. This is the case of an older adult man who presented with chest and epigastric pain. The clinical presentation, atypical signs, and symptoms of gangrenous gallbladder are presented herein along with the differential diagnoses and diagnostics for this patient. The care for and the "what not to miss" in the management of this patent are also examined in this article. It is imperative that ED providers diagnose gangrenous gallbladder early on, especially in the older adult population, who may present with covert signs and symptoms to prevent complications and avoid poor outcomes including death in this age group., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abdominal pain represents greater than 20% of US Emergency Department (ED) visits due to a wide range of illnesses. There are currently no reliable blood biomarkers to predict serious outcomes in patients with abdominal pain. Our previous studies have identified three mRNA transcripts related to innate immune activation: alkaline phosphatase (ALPL), interleukin-8 receptor-β (IL8RB), and defensin-1 (DEFA1) as promising candidates to detect an intra-abdominal infection. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of these mRNA biomarkers to predict likely infection, hospitalization and surgery in Emergency Department patients with undifferentiated abdominal pain. We prospectively enrolled Emergency Department patients with undifferentiated abdominal pain who received an abdominal CT scan as part of their evaluation. Clinical outcomes were abstracted from the CT scan and medical records. mRNA biomarker levels were calculated independent of the clinical outcomes and their accuracy was assessed to predict infectious diagnoses, surgery and hospital admission. 89 patients were enrolled; 21 underwent surgery; 47 underwent hospital admission; and, no deaths were observed within 30 days. In identifying which cases were likely infectious, mRNA biomarkers' AUC values were: ALPL, 0.83; DEFA1 0.51; IL8RB, 0.74; and ALPL + IL8RB, 0.79. In predicting which Emergency Department patients would receive surgery, the AUC values were: ALPL, 0.75; DEFA1, 0.58; IL8RB, 0.75; and ALPL + IL8RB, 0.76. In predicting hospital admission, the AUC values were: ALPL, 0.78; DEFA1, 0.52; IL8RB, 0.74; and, ALPL + IL8RB, 0.77. For predicting surgery, ALPL + IL8RB's positive likelihood ratio (LR) was 3.97; negative LR (NLR) was 0.70. For predicting hospital admission, the same marker's positive LR was 2.80 with an NLR of 0.45. Where the primary cause for admission was a potentially infectious disorder, 33 of 34 cases (97%) had positive RNA scores. In a pragmatic, prospective diagnostic accuracy trial in Emergency Department patients with undifferentiated abdominal pain, mRNA biomarkers showed good accuracy to identify patients with potential infection, as well as those needing surgery or hospital admission., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Aims: The purpose of this study was to compare the frequency and profile of abdominal pain calls to Healthline with that from other national healthcare providers; to evaluate the outcomes for this symptom against international telehealth providers; and to explore any inter-clinician variation in the response to abdominal pain that could be part of a quality improvement cycle., Methods: Data routinely collected about abdominal pain calls to Healthline from 2017 to 2019 were extracted, analysed; and compared to the literature, hospital, and ambulance data and international telehealth providers. A specialist group was convened to review the profile of Healthline callers and outcome data. Variation in outcome changes and acuity grouping was evaluated at an individual level., Results: Approximately 50,000 abdominal pain calls to Healthline over three years were analysed, with three-quarters from women, mostly of childbearing age. The majority call afterhours, with NZ European and, to a lesser extent, Māori, and callers from smaller geographical areas are over-represented. One quarter of patients had a hospital outcome (including 4% receiving an ambulance), which was found to be less acute than comparable health systems. Whakarongorau's Clinical Governance Committee and the Specialist Group both supported the relative distribution of outcomes given by Healthline for abdominal pain. There was found to be variation in the outcomes given to abdominal pain callers at an individual clinician level. This was both in their changes to the disposition given by the Odyssey decision support tool and in their overall outcome distribution., Conclusion: Healthline should be considered a key part of New Zealand's healthcare system, as illustrated by the volume of calls that it receives and the fact that presentation types are similar to general practice and emergency departments. Given that abdominal pain is a difficult symptom to accurately address without in-person examination and investigation, the findings support Healthline's outcomes as appropriate with hospitalisation rates lower than comparable healthcare systems. Whakarongorau's (the organisation which runs Healthline) ability to identify individual clinician behaviours gives it a unique opportunity to improve care through decreasing variation., Competing Interests: Nil., (© PMA.)

This study aims to improve emergency department (ED) care for patients suffering from atraumatic abdominal pain. An application-supported pathway for the ED will be implemented, which supports quick, evidence-based, and standardized diagnosis and treatment steps for patients with atraumatic abdominal pain at the ED. A mixed-methods multicentre cluster randomized controlled stepped wedge trial design will be applied. A total of 10 hospitals with EDs (expected n = 2.000 atraumatic abdominal pain patients) will consecutively (every 4 months) be randomized to apply the intervention. Inclusion criteria for patients are a minimum age of 18 years, suffering from atraumatic abdominal pain and being insured with a German statutory health insurance. Primary outcomes: acute pain score at time of discharge from ED, duration of treatment at the ED, patient-reported satisfaction. Secondary endpoints include patient safety and quality of care parameters, process evaluation parameters, and costs and cost-effectiveness parameters. Quantitative data will be gathered from patient-surveys, clinical records, and routine data from hospital information systems as well as from a participating German statutory health insurance. Descriptive and analytic statistical analysis will be performed to provide summaries and associations for primary patient-reported outcomes, process measures, quality measures, and costs. Qualitative data collection consists of participatory patient observations and semi-structured expert interviews, which will be inductively analysed. Findings will be disseminated in publications in peer-reviewed journals, on conferences, as well as via a project website. To ensure data protection, appropriate technical and organisational measures will be taken. Trial registration: DRKS00021052., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: The POP score was developed as an easy screening tool for predicting obstetrics and gynecological (OBGYN) diseases in the emergency department (ED), and consists of three predictors, each representing one point: past history of OBGYN diseases, no fever or digestive symptoms, and peritoneal irritation signs). However, its external validity has not yet been evaluated. We aimed to perform the external validation of the POP score., Methods: This is a multi-center, retrospective cohort study using ED data of three tertiary care hospitals in Japan between Jan 2017 and October 2020. Young adult women aged 16-49 years with abdominal pain were included in the analysis. The probability of OBGYN diseases was calculated using a logistic regression model of the POP score. Predictions were compared with observations to evaluate the calibration of the model. Further, the diagnostic ability (sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio) of the POP score was evaluated., Results: Of 66,599 ED visits, 1026 young adult women (median age [interquartile range]: 31 [23-41] years) were included for the analysis. The c-statistic was 0.645 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.603-0.687]. The predicted probabilities of OBGYN diseases was generally well-calibrated to the observations. When the cut-off was set between 2 and 3 points for the ruling in of OBGYN diseases, the positive likelihood ratio was 9.72 [95% CI: 3.33-28.4]. When the cut-off was set between 0 and 1 points for ruling out of OBGYN diseases, negative likelihood ratio was 0.181 [95% CI: 0.059-0.558]., Conclusions: Using ED data of three tertiary care hospitals, we externally validated the POP score for prediction of OBGYN diseases in the ED. The POP score likely has clinical value for screening OBGYN diseases in young adult women with abdominal pain in the ED., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest TS is the Chief Executive Officer of TXP Medical Co. Ltd. and reports grants from AI Hospital Research grant from Japan Cabinet Office. TG is the Chief Scientific Officer of TXP Medical Co., Ltd. TXP Medical Co. Ltd. Provides the Next Stage ER system., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Our objective was to investigate the feasibility of deep learning-based synthetic contrast-enhanced CT (DL-SCE-CT) from nonenhanced CT (NECT) in patients who visited the emergency department (ED) with acute abdominal pain (AAP). We trained an algorithm generating DL-SCE-CT using NECT with paired precontrast/postcontrast images. For clinical application, 353 patients from three institutions who visited the ED with AAP were included. Six reviewers (experienced radiologists, ER1-3; training radiologists, TR1-3) made diagnostic and disposition decisions using NECT alone and then with NECT and DL-SCE-CT together. The radiologists' confidence in decisions was graded using a 5-point scale. The diagnostic accuracy using DL-SCE-CT improved in three radiologists (50%, P = 0.023, 0.012, < 0.001, especially in 2/3 of TRs). The confidence of diagnosis and disposition improved significantly in five radiologists (83.3%, P < 0.001). Particularly, in subgroups with underlying malignancy and miscellaneous medical conditions (MMCs) and in CT-negative cases, more radiologists reported increased confidence in diagnosis (83.3% [5/6], 100.0% [6/6], and 83.3% [5/6], respectively) and disposition (66.7% [4/6], 83.3% [5/6] and 100% [6/6], respectively). In conclusion, DL-SCE-CT enhances the accuracy and confidence of diagnosis and disposition regarding patients with AAP in the ED, especially for less experienced radiologists, in CT-negative cases, and in certain disease subgroups with underlying malignancy and MMCs., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Study Objective: Abdominal pain and chest pain are leading reasons for emergency department (ED) presentations, with laboratory tests frequently ordered to aid the diagnostic process. Our study aims to identify EDs with outlying laboratory ordering practices for patients presenting with undifferentiated abdominal pain and chest pain., Methods: This was a retrospective observational study of 519,597 patients who presented with the complaint of abdominal or chest pain at 44 major hospital EDs across New South Wales, Australia, from January 2017 to September 2018. For each condition, we evaluated the risk-adjusted rate of ordering at least 1 laboratory test and of each of the top 15 ordered tests. We used funnel plots to graph variations in test ordering and identify EDs with outlying test-ordering practices. EDs lying above or below the 99.8% funnel control limits were regarded as outliers., Results: From 3,360,152 unplanned presentations, abdominal pain and chest pain represented 8.8% (n=296,809) and 6.6% (n=222,788) of all cases, respectively. No major outliers were observed for ordering at least one laboratory test; however, variations were observed for individual tests. For abdominal pain, the top 3 tests with the highest ordering variation included glucose (20 outlier EDs), C-reactive protein (10 outliers), and calcium-magnesium-phosphate (7 outliers). For chest pain, the top 3 tests with the highest ordering variation were glucose (21 outlier EDs), C-reactive protein (17 outliers), and liver function test (14 outliers)., Conclusion: Identifying EDs with outlying laboratory-ordering practices is the first step in initiating context-specific evaluation of whether outlying variations are unwarranted., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Objective: Laboratory test use varies across emergency departments (EDs), yet little is known about the effect of this variation on outcomes. The aim of this study is 2-fold: to stratify EDs into clusters based on similar test use, and to determine whether the clusters differ in patient operational outcomes among patients presenting to EDs with undifferentiated chest pain., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 222,788 patients presenting with undifferentiated chest pain at 44 EDs across New South Wales, Australia, from January 2017 to September 2018. The operational outcomes measured in this study included ED length of stay, hospital admission, the Emergency Treatment Performance target, and 7- and 15-day all-cause and same-cause ED revisit rates. We performed a hierarchic cluster analysis to identify ED clusters and mixed-effects models to determine the association between the clusters and the operational outcomes., Results: Two ED clusters, moderate users (18 EDs) and high users (26 EDs), were identified. After adjustment for confounders, the median ED length of stay was greater by 15.7% (equivalent to 33.4 minutes) in high versus moderate users (95% confidence interval 6.62 to 25.52 minutes), and high users were less likely to achieve the Emergency Treatment Performance target versus moderate users (odds ratio 0.66; 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.86). There were no significant differences between the users in hospital admission and ED revisit rates., Conclusion: Our findings suggest that reducing test use may reduce ED length of stay and improve the chance of achieving the Emergency Treatment Performance target., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abdominal pain is a common leading symptom in emergency medicine. This symptom complex includes a variety of different causes, ranging from intra-abdominal to extra-abdominal and retroperitoneal pathologies, which can affect all age groups. Abdominal complaints can include diseases ranging from trivialities to life-threatening emergencies. The acute abdominal condition is an interdisciplinary emergency in which interdisciplinary teamwork is mandatory. A rapid initial assessment and risk stratification is necessary in order to detect critically ill patients with an acute need for intervention at an early stage and to provide them with a suitable emergency therapy. A structured approach can identify the most important differential diagnoses., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren erklären, dass kein Interessenkonflikt vorliegt., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To characterize the pain experienced by children with acute gastroenteritis (AGE) in the 24 hours before emergency department (ED) presentation. Secondary objectives included characterizing ED pain, discharge recommendations, overall analgesic use, and factors that influenced analgesic use and pain severity., Study Design: A prospective cohort was recruited from 2 pediatric EDs (December 2014 to September 2017). Eligibility criteria included <18 years of age, AGE (≥3 episodes of diarrhea or vomiting in the previous 24 hours), and symptom duration <7 days at presentation., Results: We recruited 2136 patients, median age 20.8 months (IQR 10.4, 47.4) and 45.8% (979/2136) female. In the 24 hours before enrollment, most caregivers reported moderate (28.6% [610/2136, 95% CI 26.7-30.5]) or severe (46.2% [986/2136, CI 44.0-48.3]) pain for their child. In the ED, they reported moderate (31.1% [664/2136, 95% CI 29.1-33.1]) or severe ([26.7% [571/2136, 95% CI 24.9-28.7]) pain; analgesia was provided to 21.2% (452/2131). The most common analgesics used in the ED were acetaminophen and ibuprofen. At discharge, these were also most commonly recommended. Factors associated with greater analgesia use in the ED were high pain scores during the index visit, having a primary care physician, earlier presentation to emergency care, fewer diarrheal episodes, presence of fever, and hospitalization at index visit., Conclusions: Most caregivers of children presenting to the ED with AGE reported moderate or severe pain, both before and during their visit. Future research should focus on the development of effective, safe, and timely pain management plans., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Roughly 5% to 10% of patients admitted to the emergency department suffer from acute abdominal pain. Triage plays a key role in patient stratification, identifying patients who need prompt treatment versus those who can safely wait. In this regard, the aim of this study was to estimate the performance of the Manchester Triage System in classifying patients with acute abdominal pain., Methods: A total of 9,851 patients admitted at the Emergency Department of the Merano Hospital with acute abdominal pain were retrospectively enrolled between 1 January 2017 and 30 June 2019. The study was conducted and reported according to the STROBE statement. The sensitivity and specificity of the Manchester Triage System were estimated by verifying the triage classification received by the patients and their survival at seven days or the need for acute surgery within 72 h after emergency department access., Results: Among the patients with acute abdominal pain (median age 50 years), 0.4% died within seven days and 8.9% required surgery within 72 hours. The sensitivity was 44.7% (29.9-61.5), specificity was 95.4% (94.9-95.8), and negative predictive value was 99.7% (99.2-100) in relation to death at seven days., Conclusions: The Manchester Triage System shows good specificity and negative predictive value. However, its sensitivity was low due to the amount of incorrect triage prediction in patients with high-priority codes (red/orange), suggesting overtriage in relation to seven-day mortality. This may be a protective measure for the patient. In contrast, the need for acute surgery within 72 h was affected by under-triage., Relevance to Clinical Practice: The triage nurse using Manchester Triage System can correctly prioritise the majority of patients with acute abdominal pain, especially in low acuity patients. The Manchester Triage System is safe and does not underestimate the severity of the patients., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: The triage process lasts for a very short time, which can result in over-triage and under-triage. Studies have explored factors related to under-triage among trauma patients. In Korea, the clinical characteristics and severity of cases of under-triaged patients have been investigated. However, there is limited research on the under-triage of patients experiencing abdominal pain. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the under-triage rate of emergency department (ED) patients with abdominal pain, as well as the factors associated with their under-triage., Methods: The participants of this retrospective cohort study were 3,030 adult patients at a single tertiary hospital in Korea, who were brought to the ED for abdominal pain as the chief complaint. Participants' general characteristics, pain-related information, and environmental information were obtained from their electronic medical records., Results: The under-triage rate of ED patients with abdominal pain was 31.0%. Factors related to the under-triage of these patients were sex, age, visit route, time from the onset of the pain to the visit, location of pain, and intensity of pain., Conclusion: These findings provide a foundation for the understanding and mitigation of under-triage in EDs through the identification of factors associated with under-triage in patients with abdominal pain., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We compare utilization of diagnostic resources and admissions in emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain and abdominal pain when managed by advanced practice providers (APPs) and physicians., Methods: We used 2016 to 2019 data from a national emergency medicine group. We compared visits managed by physicians and APPs based on demographics and observed resource utilization (labs, radiography, computed tomography) use and hospital admission/transfer, stratified by patient age. To reduce selection bias, we created inverse propensity score weights (IPWs). To estimate the average treatment effect for APP visits for each outcome, we included IPWs in a multivariable linear probability model with a dummy variable indicating treatment by an APP and used a facility fixed effect. We then estimated the average treatment effect comparing physician to APP visit for all visits and for discharged visits separately, stratified by the study outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were performed using different cohort definitions and adjusting for past medical history., Results: In chest pain, we included 77,568 visits seen by 1,011 APPs and 586,031 visits seen by 1,588 physicians. In abdominal pain, we included 184,812 ED visits seen by 1,080 APPs and 761,230 visits seen by 1,689 physicians. For both chest pain and abdominal pain visits, physicians saw more older adult patients (55+ years) and admitted a higher percentage of visits than APPs. For chest pain, physicians saw more circulatory system diseases (70.7% vs. 58.6%); APPs saw more respiratory system diseases (17.1% vs. 9.8%). In abdominal pain, emergency physicians saw more digestive system diseases (28.5% vs. 23.3%); APPs saw more genitourinary system diseases. After matching with IPW, predicted probabilities of laboratory, radiology, and admissions either did not vary or were slightly lower for APPs compared to physicians for all outcomes. Sensitivity analyses showed similar results, including controlling for past medical history., Conclusion: Diagnostic testing and hospitalization rates for chest pain and abdominal pain between APPs and physicians is largely similar after matching for severity and complexity. This suggests that APPs do not have observably higher use of ED and hospital resources in these conditions in this national group., (© 2020 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Importance: There is increased awareness of radiation risks from computed tomography (CT) in pediatric patients. In emergency departments (EDs), evidence-based guidelines, improvements in imaging technology, and availability of nonradiating modalities have potentially reduced CT use., Objective: To evaluate changes over time and hospital variation in advanced imaging use., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study assessed 26 082 062 ED visits by children younger than 18 years from the Pediatric Health Information System administrative database from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2018., Exposures: Imaging., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the change in CT, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) rates from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2018. Imaging for specific diagnoses was examined using all patient-refined diagnosis related groups. Secondary outcomes were hospital admission and 3-day ED revisit rates and ED length of stay., Results: There were a total of 26 082 062 visits by 9 868 406 children (mean [SD] age, 5.59 [5.15] years; 13 842 567 [53.1%] male; 9 273 181 [35.6%] non-Hispanic white) to 32 US pediatric EDs during the 10-year study period, with 1 or more advanced imaging studies used in 1 919 283 encounters (7.4%). The proportion of ED encounters with any advanced imaging increased from 6.4% (95% CI, 6.2%-6.2%) in 2009 to 8.7% (95% CI, 8.7%-8.8%) in 2018. The proportion of ED encounters with CT decreased from 3.9% (95% CI, 3.9%-3.9%) to 2.9% (95% CI, 2.9%-3.0%) (P < .001 for trend), with ultrasonography increased from 2.5% (95% CI, 2.5%-2.6%) to 5.8% (95% CI, 5.8%-5.9%) (P < .001 for trend), and with MRI increased from 0.3% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.4%) to 0.6% (95% CI, 0.6%-0.6%) (P < .001 for trend). The largest decreases in CT rates were for concussion (-23.0%), appendectomy (-14.9%), ventricular shunt procedures (-13.3%), and headaches (-12.4%). Factors associated with increased use of nonradiating imaging modalities included ultrasonography for abdominal pain (20.3%) and appendectomy (42.5%) and MRI for ventricular shunt procedures (17.9%) (P < .001 for trend). Across the study period, EDs varied widely in the use of ultrasonography for appendectomy (median, 57.5%; interquartile range [IQR], 40.4%-69.8%) and MRI (median, 15.8%; IQR, 8.3%-35.1%) and CT (median, 69.5%; IQR, 54.5%-76.4%) for ventricular shunt procedures. Overall, ED length of stay did not change, and hospitalization and 3-day ED revisit rates decreased during the study period., Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that use of advanced imaging increased from 2009 to 2018. Although CT use decreased, this decrease was accompanied by a greater increase in the use of ultrasonography and MRI. There appears to be substantial variation in practice and a need to standardize imaging practices.

Recurrent abdominal pain accounts for a significant proportion of attenders and high impact users in the emergency department. Due to the heterogeneity of presentation and the broad spectrum of possible causes, abdominal pain presents as a significant clinical challenge within the emergency department, particularly as distress and pain are commonly elevated. Patients in this group are routinely prescribed opiate-based interventions and repeated investigations in a 'better safe than sorry' culture which saturates the field of persistent physical symptoms. This approach is contributing to the growing problem, and fuelling a cycle of repeated attendance and failure to resolve. This article reviews the current clinical and psychophysiological understanding of recurrent abdominal pain, critiquing guidelines and approaches to diagnosis and management. We offer an alternative evidence-based biopsychosocial approach using the mnemonic 'ERROR', recommending five steps to assessment and clinical management of recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Acute abdominal pain can be a diagnostic challenge even for experienced surgeons. Delayed diagnosis can lead to higher morbidity, mortality and increased costs. While readmission rate has been used to evaluate quality of surgical care, studies addressing the issue in emergency departments (ED) are rare. The role of emergency physicians in the care of patients with abdominal pain is increasing in many European countries, including Finland. It is not known whether this has an effect on the number of readmissions. Here we evaluate whether the increasing role of emergency physicians in examining patients presenting with abdominal pain has affected the rate of short-term revisits among patients with non-specific abdominal pain (NSAP)., Methods: We identified consecutive ED patients receiving a diagnosis of NSAP 1.1. 2015-31.12.2016 in the ED of Tampere University Hospital. Those revisiting the ED within 48 h were selected for further analysis. Data were obtained from electronic medical records. We compared the outcomes of those initially examined by surgeons and by emergency physicians., Results: During the study period, 173,630 patients visited our ED, of whom 6.1% (n = 10,609) were discharged with a diagnosis of NSAP. Only 3.0% of patients revisited the ED, 0.7% required hospitalization and 0.06% immediate surgery. The short-term revisit rates among those originally examined by surgeons and by emergency physicians were similar, 2.8 and 3.2% respectively (p = 0.193)., Conclusions: The rate of short-term revisits in patients with NSAP was altogether low. The increasing role of emergency physicians in the care of acute abdominal patients did not affect the revisit rate.

Background: Point-of-Care ultrasound (POCUS) changes the management in specific groups of patients in the Emergency Department (ED). It seems intuitive that POCUS holds an unexploited potential on a wide variety of patients. However, little is known about the effect of ultrasound on the broad spectrum of unselected patients in the ED. This study aimed to identify the effect on the clinical management if POCUS was applied on unselected patients. Secondarily the study aimed to identify predictors of ultrasound changing management., Methods: This study was a blinded observational single center trial. A basic whole body POCUS protocol was performed in extension to the physical examination. The blinded treating physicians were interviewed about the presumptive diagnosis and plan for the patient. Subsequently the physicians were unblinded to the POCUS results and asked to choose between five options regarding the benefit from POCUS results., Results: A total of 403 patients were enrolled in this study. The treating physicians regarded POCUS examinations influence on the diagnostic workup or treatment as following: 1) No new information: 249 (61.8%), 2) No further action: 45 (11.2%), 3) Further diagnostic workup needed: 52 (12.9%), 4) Presumptive diagnosis confirmed 38 (9.4%), and 5) Immediate treatment needed: 19 (4.7%). Predictors of beneficial ultrasound were: (a) triage > 1, (b) patient comorbidities (cardiac disease, hypertension or lung disease), or (c) patients presenting with abdominal pain, dyspnea, or syncope., Conclusion: POCUS was found to be potentially beneficial in 27.0% of all patients. High triage score, known cardiac disease, hypertension, pulmonary diseases, a clinical presentation with abdominal pain, dyspnea, or syncope are predictors of this. Future research should focus on patient-important outcomes when applying POCUS on these patients., Trial Registration: The trail was registered prior to patient inclusion with the Danish Data Protection Agency (https://www.datatilsynet.dk/ Case no: 1-16-02-603-14) and Clinical Trials (www.clinicaltrials.gov/ Protocol ID: DNVK1305018).

Background: Abdominal pain is one of the most common complaints among patients admitted to the Emergency Department (ED). Diagnosis and management of abdominal pain may be a challenge and there are patients who require admission to the ED more than once in a short period of time. Our purpose was to assess the incidence of readmissions among patients treated in the ED due to abdominal pain and to investigate the impact of readmission on the further course of treatment., Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study, which included patients admitted to the ED in one academic, teaching hospital presenting with non-traumatic abdominal pain in a three-month period. Analyzed factors included demographic data, details related to first and subsequent visits in the ED and the course of hospitalization., Results: Overall, 928 patients were included to the study and 101 (10.88%) patients were admitted to the ED more than once during three-month period. Patients visiting ED repeatedly were older (p = 0.03) and more likely to be hospitalized (p < 0.01) compared to single-visit patients. Patients during their subsequent visits spent more time in the ED (p = 0.01), had greater chance to repeat their appointment (p = 0.04), be admitted to the hospital (p < 0.01) and were more likely diagnosed with cholelithiasis (p = 0.03) compared to patients on their initial visit. If admitted to the surgical department they were also more often qualified for surgical procedure than patients on their first visit (p < 0.01). In a group of patients admitted to the surgical department there were no significant differences in rates of conversion, postoperative complications and mortality between subgroups., Conclusions: Readmissions among patients presenting with abdominal pain are a common phenomenon with prevalence of 10.88%. They are most commonly associated with cholelithiasis and occur more frequently among older patients, which suggests, that elderly require more attention during ED managements.

Background: Obstetric and gynecological (OBGY) diseases are among the most important differential diagnoses for young women with acute abdominal pain. However, there are few established clinical prediction rules for screening OBGY diseases in emergency departments (EDs). This study aimed to develop a prediction model for diagnosing OBGY diseases in the ED., Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study included female patients with acute abdominal pain who presented to our ED. We developed a logistic regression model for predicting OBGY diseases and assessed its diagnostic ability. This study included young female patients aged between 16 and 49 years who had abdominal pain and were examined at the ED between April 2017 and March 2018. Trauma patients and patients who were referred from other hospitals or from the OBGY department of our hospital were excluded., Results: Out of 27,991 patients, 740 were included. Sixty-five patients were diagnosed with OBGY diseases (8.8%). The "POP" scoring system (past history of OBGY diseases + 1, no other symptoms + 1, and peritoneal irritation signs + 1) was developed. Cut-off values set between 0 and 1 points, sensitivity at 0.97, specificity at 0.39, and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.1 (95% CI: 0.02-0.31) were considered to rule-out, while cut-off values set between 2 and 3 points, sensitivity at 0.23 (95% CI 0.13-0.33), specificity at 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-1.00), and positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 17.30 (95% CI: 7.88-37.99) were considered to rule-in., Conclusions: Our "POP" scoring system may be useful for screening OBGY diseases in the ED. Further research is necessary to assess the predictive performance and external validity of different data sets.

Abdominal and extremity complaints are common in the emergency department (ED) and, because of their frequency, clinical vigilance is vital in order not to miss the timely diagnosis of occult or delayed emergencies. Such emergencies, if not timely managed, are sources of significant patient morbidity and mortality and may expose ED physicians to possible litigation. Each patient complaint yields to a nuanced approach in diagnostics and therapeutics that can lead physicians toward the ruling in or out of the correct high-risk diagnosis. This article discusses the approach and risk management of this high-risk subset of abdominal and extremity diagnoses., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To describe disease presentation and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) of Bernhoven hospital in Uden, the Netherlands., Design: Prospective, descriptive study., Method: The registry focused on atypical symptoms and co-infections. We hypothesized that patients older than 70 years more often have atypical symptoms. The number of co-infections is unknown. Therefore, we prospectively registered medical history, duration of symptoms, symptoms, temperature, lab results and co-infections of patients with confirmed COVID-19 in the period March 4-16th., Results: The clinical characteristics of 107 patients were registered. The average age was 71 years and 41% was female. The median duration of symptoms was 5 days. 19% of patients had not been referred to pulmonary or internal medicine. Symptoms were fever (78%), respiratory complaints (78%), chest pain (28%), abdominal pain (13%), and diarrhea (34%). In 54% of the COVID-19 patients at the ED, the temperature was ≥ 38,0°C, CRP ≥ 50 in 51%, leucocytosis in 12% and elevated LD in 61%. Of 31 patients 24 (77%) had an absolute lymphopenia. Co-infections were seen in 16% of patients. The mortality in the ED was 2% and ICU-admission 5%. On March 25th, 2020 the overall mortality was 22% and ICU-admission 15%., Conclusion: We have seen patients with a very serious disease resulting in a high mortality and ICU-admission. Over 35% of patient did not have the typical symptoms of fever and respiratory complaints; atypical symptoms like chest pain, abdominal pain and diarrhea are frequently seen. There is no difference between patients over and under 70 years. COVID-19 patients can present with atypical symptoms, co-infections and distributed over various medical specialties.

Importance: Appendicitis may be missed during initial emergency department (ED) presentation., Objective: To compare patients with a potentially missed diagnosis of appendicitis (ie, patients with symptoms associated with appendicitis, including abdominal pain, constipation, nausea and/or vomiting, fever, and diarrhea diagnosed within 1-30 days after initial ED presentation) with patients diagnosed with appendicitis on the same day of ED presentation to identify factors associated with potentially missed appendicitis., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, a retrospective analysis of commercially insured claims data was conducted from January 1 to December 15, 2019. Patients who presented to the ED with undifferentiated symptoms associated with appendicitis between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017, were identified using the Clinformatics Data Mart administrative database (Optum Insights). The study sample comprised eligible adults (aged ≥18 years) and children (aged <18 years) who had previous ED visits within 30 days of an appendicitis diagnosis., Main Outcomes and Measures: Potentially missed diagnosis of appendicitis. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) for abdominal pain and its combinations with other symptoms associated with appendicitis were compared between patients with a same-day diagnosis of appendicitis and patients with a potentially missed diagnosis of appendicitis., Results: Of 187 461 patients with a diagnosis of appendicitis, a total of 123 711 (66%; 101 375 adults [81.9%] and 22 336 children [18.1%]) were eligible for analysis. Among adults, 51 923 (51.2%) were women, with a mean (SD) age of 44.3 (18.2) years; among children, 9631 (43.1%) were girls, with a mean (SD) age of 12.2 (18.2) years. The frequency of potentially missed appendicitis was 6060 of 101 375 adults (6.0%) and 973 of 22 336 children (4.4%). Patients with isolated abdominal pain (adults, AOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.62-0.69; P < .001; children, AOR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.90; P < .001) or with abdominal pain and nausea and/or vomiting (adults, AOR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.97; P = .003; children, AOR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.98; P = .03) were less likely to have missed appendicitis. Patients with abdominal pain and constipation (adults, AOR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.31-1.75; P < .001; children, AOR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.86-3.17; P < .001) were more likely to have missed appendicitis. Stratified by the presence of undifferentiated symptoms, women (abdominal pain, AOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.58-1.78; nausea and/or vomiting, AOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.52-1.85; fever, AOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.59; diarrhea, AOR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.01-1.40; and constipation, AOR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.24-1.82) and girls (abdominal pain, AOR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.43-1.88; nausea and/or vomiting, AOR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.42-2.13; fever, AOR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.14-2.11; diarrhea, AOR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.19-2.74; and constipation, AOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.88-1.78) as well as patients with a comorbidity index of 2 or greater (adults, abdominal pain, AOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 3.09-3.60; nausea and/or vomiting, AOR, 3.66; 95% CI, 3.23-4.14; fever, AOR, 5.00; 95% CI, 3.79-6.60; diarrhea, AOR, 4.27; 95% CI, 3.39-5.38; and constipation, AOR, 4.17; 95% CI, 3.08-5.65; children, abdominal pain, AOR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.93-3.05; nausea and/or vomiting, AOR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.89-3.45; fever, AOR, 4.12; 95% CI, 2.71-6.25; diarrhea, AOR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.18-3.97; and constipation, AOR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.30-3.70) were more likely to have missed appendicitis. Adult patients who received computed tomographic scans at the initial ED visit (abdominal pain, AOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.52-0.65; nausea and/or vomiting, AOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52-0.75; fever, AOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.29-0.58; diarrhea, AOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.58-1.20; and constipation, AOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.94) were less likely to have missed appendicitis., Conclusions and Relevance: Regardless of age, a missed diagnosis of appendicitis was more likely to occur in women, patients with comorbidities, and patients who experienced abdominal pain accompanied by constipation. Population-based estimates of the rates of potentially missed appendicitis reveal opportunities for improvement and identify factors that may mitigate the risk of a missed diagnosis.

Although eating disorders are on the psychiatric spectrum, they can have serious associated medical complications. Patients with eating disorders may present with complaints common to the emergency department such as abdominal pain, chest pain, syncope, or palpitations, but management of these conditions in eating disordered patients can pose a challenge. This issue provides a systems-based approach to the history, physical examination, evaluation, and treatment of acute complications of eating disorders, with a specific focus on the pathophysiology and management differences between an otherwise healthy patient and a patient with an eating disorder.

Objectives: Intussusception is the most common abdominal emergency in pediatric patients aged 6 months to 3 years. There is often a delay in diagnosis, as the presentation can be confused for viral gastroenteritis. Given this scenario, we questioned the practice of performing emergency reductions in children during the night when minimal support staff are available. Pneumatic reduction is not a benign procedure, with the most significant risk being bowel perforation. We performed this analysis to determine whether it would be safe to delay reduction in these patients until normal working hours when more support staff are available., Methods: We performed a retrospective review of intussusceptions occurring between January 2010 and May 2015 at 2 tertiary care institutions. The medical record for each patient was evaluated for age at presentation, sex, time of presentation to clinician or the emergency department, and time to reduction. The outcomes of attempted reduction were documented, as well as time to surgery and surgical findings in applicable cases. A Wilcoxon rank test was used to compare the median time with nonsurgical intervention among those who did not undergo surgery to the median time to nonsurgical intervention among those who ultimately underwent surgery for reduction. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test the association between surgical intervention and time to nonsurgical reduction, adjusting for the age of patients., Results: The median time to nonsurgical intervention was higher among patients who ultimately underwent surgery than among those who did not require surgery (17.9 vs 7.0 hours; P < 0.0001). The time to nonsurgical intervention was positively associated with a higher probability of surgical intervention (P = 0.002)., Conclusions: Intussusception should continue to be considered an emergency, with nonsurgical reduction attempted promptly as standard of care.

Although common, little is known about the characteristics and management of undifferentiated abdominal pain (UAP) in the pediatric emergency department (ED). This study was a 12-month retrospective study for "abdominal pain" ED visits. Patients without an identifiable diagnosis were categorized as "UAP," while others with identified disease processes were categorized as "structural gastrointestinal diagnosis (SGID)." We included 2383 (72%) visits with 869 (36.5%) UAP visits and 1514 (63.5%) SGID visits. SGID patients had more laboratory tests (811 [53.6%] vs 422 [48.6%], P = .0186), and often had multiple tests performed (565 [69.7%] vs 264 [62.6%], P = .0116). Computed tomography and ultrasound scans were more common in SGID (computed tomography: 108 [7.1%] vs 27 [3.1%], P = .0004; ultrasound: 377 [24.9%] vs 172 [19.9%], P = .0044), and laboratory results (white blood cell count, hemoglobin, albumin, C-reactive protein) were abnormal at significantly higher rates. Analyses revealed the duration of pain as primary covariate in variance of pain etiology. Clinical features, such as duration of pain, may be augmented by laboratory tests to facilitate recognition of UAP in the ED.

Introduction: Although not supported by evidence, there may be a risk of overlooking pathological findings at patients' return visit after emergency admission for non-specific abdominal pain (NSAP). The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of missed acute pathology in patients primarily discharged with NSAP and re-admitted within three months., Methods: This was a retrospective review of hospital records within a three-month period (1 September-30 November, 2014) in a university hospital with unrestricted referral of abdominal emergency patients. Patients fulfilling the criteria for NSAP were included in the study., Results: Among the 1,474 patients admitted with acute abdominal pain, 390 (26%) were discharged with NSAP; 16% of the patients who were discharged with NSAP were re-admitted for abdominal pain. At their return visit, 39% received a verified specific diagnosis, corresponding to 6% of all patients with the NSAP diagnosis. A total of 40% of the early re-admissions of patients with NSAP were related to the biliary tract (cholelithiatis, cholangitis and cholecystitis). Co-morbidity, nausea, vomiting and increased white blood cell count at the primary admission were significantly associated with a risk of missing a specific diagnosis (p < 0.05)., Conclusions: This study found that only 6% of the patients who were admitted for acute abdominal pain and were discharged with no diagnosis had a somatic condition. However, risk of pathological findings at the return visit was relatively high among patients discharged with NSAP., Funding: none., Trial Registration: not relevant., (Articles published in the DMJ are “open access”. This means that the articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits any non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.)

Objective: Studies show that First Nations patients have worse health outcomes than non-First Nations patients, raising concerns that treatment within the healthcare system, including emergency care, is inequitable., Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of Status First Nations and non-First Nations patients presenting to two emergency departments in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan with abdominal pain and a Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale score of 3. From 190 charts (95 Status First Nations and 95 non-First Nations), data extracted included time to doctor, time to analgesia, length of stay, specialist consult, bloodwork, imaging, physical exam and history, and disposition. Univariate comparisons and multiple regression modelling were performed to compare care outcomes between patient groups. Equivalence testing comparing time intervals was also undertaken., Results: No statistically significant differences in presentation characteristics were observed, although Status First Nations subjects showed a greater tendency towards weekend presentation and younger age. Care parameters were similar, although a marginally significant difference was observed in Status First Nations versus non-First Nations subjects for imaging (46% versus 60%, p=0.06), which resolved on adjustment for age and weekend presentation. Time to physician was found to be similar among First Nations patients on equivalence testing within a 15-minute margin., Conclusion: In this study, First Nations patients presenting with abdominal pain did not receive delayed care. There were no detectable differences in the time-related care parameters/variables that were provided relative to non-First Nations patients. Meaningful and important qualitative factors need to be examined in the future.

Background: Ethnicity is a risk factor for disparate Emergency Department (ED) analgesia. We aimed to explore ethnic variations in the administration of ED analgesia to children with acute appendicitis in Israeli government hospitals., Methods: Children discharged with an International Classification of Disease-Ninth Revision diagnosis of acute appendicitis between 2010 and 2015 were included. The association between patient ethnicity (Jewish, Arab) and analgesia administration (any, opioid) was assessed. Age, gender, triage category, pain score and time of arrival were tested as possible confounders. The effect of patient-nurse ethnic discordance (PNED) was examined., Results: Overall, 4714 children with acute appendicitis, 3520 Jewish and 1194 Arab, were cared for in the EDs; 1516 (32.2%) received any analgesia and 368 (7.8%) opioid analgesia. Stratified by pain score, no statistical differences were found in the administration of any or opioid analgesia between Jewish and Arab patients with either severe pain or moderate pain. In multivariate modelling adjusted for pain score and triage category, the rates of any analgesia for Arab and Jewish patients were 31.8% (95% CI, 30.9-32.6) and 36.5% (95% CI, 36.0-36.9), adjusted OR (aOR) = 1.16 (95% CI, 0.98-1.38), respectively. The rates of opioid analgesia for Arab and Jewish patients were 8.5% (95% CI, 8.2-8.9) and 7.9% (95% CI, 7.3-8.7), aOR = 0.77; (95% CI, 0.59-1.22), respectively. Jewish and Arab nurses treated proportionally fewer patients from the opposite ethnicity with any analgesia (p < 0.01)., Conclusion: Emergency Department analgesia was markedly low, and not associated with patient ethnicity. PNED was associated with decreased rates of analgesia., Significance: Emergency Department analgesia for children with acute appendicitis in Israeli government hospitals is markedly low. Patient-provider ethnic discordance may negatively influence the provision of analgesia. Significant efforts should be undertaken in order to increase analgesia provision rates and reduce social inequality., (© 2018 European Pain Federation - EFIC®.)

Introduction: Many patients presenting with abdominal pain to emergency departments (EDs) are discharged without a definitive diagnosis. For these patients, often designated as having non-specific abdominal pain, re-evaluation is often advocated. We aimed to investigate how often re-evaluation changes the diagnosis and clinical management and discern factors that could help identify patients likely to benefit from re-evaluation., Methods: This was a retrospective study conducted in the Netherlands between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2015 of patients asked to return to the ED after an initial presentation with acute non-traumatic abdominal pain. The primary outcome was a clinically relevant change in treatment (surgery, endoscopy during admission and/or hospitalisation) and diagnosis at ED re-evaluation within 30 hours., Results: During the 2-year study period, 358 ED patients with non-specific abdominal pain were scheduled for re-evaluation. Of these, 14% (11%-18%)) did not present for re-evaluation. Re-evaluation resulted in a clinically relevant change in diagnosis and treatment in, respectively, 21.3% (17%-29%)) and 22.3% (18%-27%)) of the subjects. Of the clinical, biochemical and radiological factors available at the index visit, C reactive protein (CRP) at the index visit predicted a change in treatment (CRP >27 mg/L likelihood ratio (LR)+ 1.69 (1.21-2.36)), while an increase in CRP of >25 mg/L between index and re-evaluation visit (LR+ 2.85 (1.88-4.32)) and the conduct of radiological studies at the re-evaluation visit were associated with changes in treatment (LR+ 3.05 (2.41-3.86))., Conclusion: Re-evaluation within 30 hours for ED patients discharged with non-specific abdominal pain resulted in a clinically relevant change in diagnosis and therapy in almost one-quarter of patients. Elevated CRP at the index visit might assist in correctly identifying patients with a greater likelihood of needing treatment in follow-up, and a low threshold for radiological studies should be considered during re-evaluation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: Serum lactate is frequently tested in the emergency department (ED) setting to diagnose visceral ischemia and as a marker of end-organ perfusion. It is highly nonspecific, and levels can be affected by both kidney and liver function. In this retrospective chart review, we aim to demonstrate that serum lactate is overused in the ED setting and predicts resource utilization but not the need for surgical intervention., Methods: ED records with a chief complaint of "abdominal pain" were queried for the preceding 12 mo. We excluded pregnant patients, patients aged less than 18 years, and patients for whom a blood count and chemistry were not obtained. Vital signs, laboratory values, resource utilization, and outcome of the visit were obtained. Logistic regression models were developed to correct for confounding associations., Results: A total of 1003 records were obtained initially with 753 patients (75%) included in the study. Serum lactate was drawn in 118 patients (15%) and was elevated in 19 patients (16% of those drawn). Utilization of computed tomography imaging was associated with lactate utilization (P < 0.001). Patients in whom lactate was drawn were more likely to have a general surgery consult (51% versus 34%, P < 0.001) and to be admitted to the hospital (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: The use of serum lactate in the workup of patients with abdominal pain should be targeted at patients who have signs of sepsis and based on the index of suspicion for specific disease processes such as mesenteric ischemia., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Autoinflammatory diseases (AIDs) usually present with acute abdominal pain and fever, both of which are also the main causes of referral in the emergency department. As some patients with acute abdominal pain may be discharged from the emergency department without a definitive diagnosis, it is not surprising that, due to their rarity, most cases of AID remain undiagnosed or are misdiagnosed as acute appendicitis. Indeed, the diagnosis of familial Mediterranean fever and autoinflammatory syndromes requires a high index of suspicion and careful assessment of clinical history. Age of onset and clinical features, in particular the self-limiting acute attacks, together with prodromal symptoms and trigger factors, are useful to suspect these dis- orders. In addition, discrepancies in laboratory tests that show an increase in acute phase reactants as well as diagnostic imaging, which usually fails to show specific abdominal disorders, may help in the identification of patients who require genetic testing to confirm a diagnosis of AID.

Study Objective: We determine whether omitting the pelvic examination in emergency department (ED) evaluation of vaginal bleeding or lower abdominal pain in ultrasonographically confirmed early intrauterine pregnancy is equivalent to performing the examination., Methods: We conducted a prospective, open-label, randomized, equivalence trial in pregnant patients presenting to the ED from February 2011 to November 2015. Patients were randomized to no pelvic examination versus pelvic examination. Inclusion criteria were aged 18 years or older, English speaking, vaginal bleeding or lower abdominal pain, positive β-human chorionic gonadotropin result, and less than 16-week intrauterine pregnancy by ultrasonography. Thirty-day record review and follow-up call assessed for composite morbidity endpoints (unscheduled return, subsequent admission, emergency procedure, transfusion, infection, and alternate source of symptoms). Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess patient satisfaction and throughput times., Results: Only 202 (of a planned 720) patients were enrolled, despite extension of the study enrollment period. The composite morbidity outcome was experienced at similar rates in the intervention (no pelvic examination) and control (pelvic examination) groups (19.6% versus 22.0%; difference -2.4%; 90% confidence interval [CI] -11.8% to 7.1%). Patients in the intervention group were less likely to report feeling uncomfortable or very uncomfortable during the visit (11.2% versus 23.7%; difference -12.5; 95% CI -23.0% to -2.0%)., Conclusion: Although there was only a small difference between the percentage of patients experiencing the composite morbidity endpoint in the 2 study groups (2.4%), the resulting 90% CI was too wide to conclude equivalence. This may have been due to insufficient power. Patients assigned to the pelvic examination group reported feeling uncomfortable more frequently., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Children with suspected appendicitis are at risk for suboptimal pain management. We sought to describe pain management patterns for suspected appendicitis across Canadian pediatric emergency departments (PEDs)., Methods: A retrospective medical record review was undertaken at 12 Canadian PEDs. Children ages 3 to 17 years who were admitted to the hospital in February or October 2010 with suspected appendicitis were included. Patients were excluded if partially assessed or treated at another hospital. Data were abstracted using a study-specific, standardized electronic data extraction tool. The primary outcome was the proportion of children who received analgesia while in the emergency department (ED). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of children receiving intravenous (IV) morphine and the timing of analgesic provision., Results: A total of 619 health records were abstracted; mean (SD) patient age was 11.4 (3.5) years. Sixty-one percent (381/616) of patients received analgesia in the ED; 42.8% (264/616) received IV morphine. Other analgesic agents provided included oral acetaminophen (23.5% [145/616]) and oral ibuprofen (5.8% [36/616]). The median (IQR) initial dose of IV morphine was 0.06 (0.04, 0.09) mg/kg. The median (IQR) time from triage to the initial dose of analgesia was 196 (101, 309.5) minutes. Forty-three percent (117/269) of children receiving analgesia received the initial dose following surgical consultation; 43.7% (121/277) received their first analgesic after abdominal ultrasound was performed., Conclusions: Suboptimal and delayed analgesia remains a significant issue for children with suspected appendicitis in Canadian PEDs. This suggests a role for multidimensional knowledge translation interventions and care protocols to improve timely access to analgesia.

Objectives: Constipation is a common cause of abdominal pain in children presenting to the emergency department (ED). The objectives of this study were to determine the diagnostic evaluation undertaken for constipation and to assess the association of the evaluation with final ED disposition., Methods: A retrospective chart review of children presenting to the pediatric ED of a quaternary care children's hospital with abdominal pain that received a soap suds enema therapy., Results: A total of 512 children were included, 270 (52.7%) were female, and the median age was 8.0 (IQR: 4.0-11.0). One hundred and thirty eight patients (27%) had a digital rectal exam (DRE), 120 (22.8%) had bloodwork performed, 218 (43%) had urinalysis obtained, 397 (77.5%) had abdominal radiographs, 120 (23.4%) had abdominal ultrasounds, and 18 (3.5%) had computed tomography scans. Children who had a DRE had a younger median age (6.0, IQR: 3.0-9.25 vs. 8.0, IQR: 4.0-12.0; p<0.001) and were significantly less likely to have radiologic imaging (OR=0.50, 95% CI 0.32-0.78; p=0.002), but did not have an increased odds of being discharged home. After adjusting for gender, ethnicity, and significant past medical history those with an abdominal radiograph were less likely to be discharged to home (aOR=0.56, 95% CI 0.31-1.01; p=0.05)., Conclusions: The diagnostic evaluation of children diagnosed with fecal impaction in the ED varied. Abdominal imaging may be avoided if children receive a DRE. When children presenting to the ED with abdominal pain had an abdominal radiograph, they were more likely to be admitted., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) is characterized by symptoms of cyclic abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting in the setting of prolonged cannabis use. The transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) receptor may be involved in this syndrome. Topical capsaicin is a proposed treatment for CHS; it binds TRPV1 with high specificity, impairing substance P signaling in the area postrema and nucleus tractus solitarius via overstimulation of TRPV1. This may explain its apparent antiemetic effect in this syndrome., Purpose: We describe a series of thirteen cases of suspected cannabis hyperemesis syndrome treated with capsaicin in the emergency departments of two academic medical centers., Methods: A query of the electronic health record at both centers identified thirteen patients with documented daily cannabis use and symptoms consistent with CHS who were administered topical capsaicin cream for symptom management., Results: All 13 patients experienced symptom relief after administration of capsaicin cream., Conclusion: Topical capsaicin was associated with improvement in symptoms of CHS after other treatments failed.